Pastors are in a tough spot these days. The Church as an institution is in the midst of major change that pre-dated the pandemic but was quickly accelerated by it. Those we looked forward to seeing after Covid still haven’t rejoined us. The budget is tightening. The volunteers are burned out. And each person in the pew comes bearing big worries, some of them personal and many of them shared: political rhetoric is becoming more and more divisive, and we know that injustice, climate change, and gun violence endanger each of us. That means we are all a little on edge. That makes us all a little harder to shepherd.

When we are anxious, we can get stuck in the parts of our brain designed to protect us. Our brain is wonderfully made to focus all our resources on survival when we face a physical threat. Unfortunately, this set-up is less helpful when needing to have a hard or uncomfortable conversation than it is when we are faced with a hungry or threatened predator. Our brain chemistry locks us out of our creativity and openness to possibilities and instead urges us to take what seems like the shortest route to safety and stability.

Enter: anonymous feedback. An unsigned note or a verbal message passed through a third party might seem like the best way to give your pastors a quick check on the pulse of the congregation (or, at least, of one member of it) while sparing both of you some trouble. But here’s why that feedback might not be as effective as you hope:

It separates the criticism from needed context. For feedback to be useful, the one being critiqued needs to be able to ask further questions (e.g., what was it about this that really troubled you? Who specifically are the people upset by this?). And often there is a pastoral care issue beneath a criticism, which cannot be unearthed and addressed if there's not conversation. 

It doesn't follow scriptural witness about conflict. Matthew 18 tells us that the first step in resolving friction is for the offended party to go directly to the one who offended, even (perhaps especially) if the offense was unintentional. Subsequent actions include bringing other people into the conversation if necessary. Nowhere in Matthew 18 is there mention of anonymous feedback.

It puts the receiver of the feedback in an awkward position. Family systems theory teaches us about triangulation, in which someone is roped into being the middle person in a relationship rift. That triangulated person might have little to no stake in the presenting issue, but they are caught between the hopes and needs of two people with which they must interact.  

It puts the pastor in a defensive posture. If your pastor doesn't know who is giving this feedback, that is a recipe for high anxiety: who is upset with me? Who is looking more closely for me to slip up? Whom can I trust? These questions are distractions from - not conditions for - fruitful ministry. 

It doesn't contribute toward forward-looking solutions to the issue. If a situation is concerning enough that you need to offer feedback, it's important that you are also willing to help look for a way to resolve it. That requires working together with those involved, which isn't possible when feedback is given via an unsigned note.

It deprives both parties of the chance to strengthen the relationship. It might seem counter-intuitive, but sometimes the most trusting relationships come when the people involved were willing to be honest and vulnerable with each other about disappointment or disagreement. Take that chance!

Luckily, we have more helpful ways to take our thoughts to the people who lead us. Lay leaders can set these expectations and procedures in place to get the kind of information that they and the pastor can use:

Consistently refuse to entertain anonymous criticisms. Make it policy that unsigned feedback will be trashed, remind the church about that policy regularly, and stick to it. People will have to decide whether the issue is important enough to them to be more direct in their feedback.

Create clear feedback loops and educate the congregation about them. What, then, is the best way for pastors and lay leaders to receive comments? Name the how (e.g., by filling out a form? setting up an appointment?), the when (e.g., anytime except right before worship), and the who (e.g., the pastor or personnel committee). 

Don't wait until annual reviews to share feedback with the pastor. Many ministers dread annual reviews because it has become a time to pile on all the congregation's frustrations and survival anxieties from the year prior. Feedback is much more helpful when it is specific and timely. 

Encourage positive feedback as well. Your pastors need to hear what you appreciate about their ministries. They will be better able to receive your critiques if they know you see their gifts as well as their shortcomings. As with negative comments, specific and timely feedback is the most useful. 

We all get anxious and frustrated at times. That means we care. But those feelings are also signals that we need to make an effort to tap into our higher brain functioning by interrupting the idea that we are in imminent danger (by such means as taking deep breaths, going for a walk, or watching a funny video). When we do, we can have productive, substantive conversations that allow us all to be the body of Christ together, working in concert to share the love of God in a troubled and troubling world.

Photo by lilartsy on Unsplash.

I'm really proud of my mom.

For a long time she has been feeling restless in her congregation. She greatly respects the pastors. She feels seen and loved by her fellow members. But a primary reason she joined this church was because my dad, who died a year and a half ago, was comfortable there. Now he's gone, and the theology and worship style don't fit her. She knows everyone there approaches her as a widow, which she is, but she's a very active one who doesn't want to be reminded constantly of her loss.

So Mom has been visiting around, and she thinks she's found her place. Having ministers for a son-in-law and daughter, though, she knew she shouldn't ghost her former congregation. She texted one of the pastors and asked to meet with him. Here's what she said during that conversation:

She gave thanks for the gifts of the ministers and the church's care for her. These pastors were so attentive to her and to my dad during some really rough years. Their support was essential, and she told them so.

She explained why she was leaving. It had nothing to do with conflict, and it was a hard decision. But she worships best through traditional hymns. She is more able to engage in Bible study with a particular theological bent. This congregation doesn't offer either.

She noted that she even though the congregation was no longer a fit for her, she celebrated that it was a great fit for others. It's wonderful that some people experience Jesus through praise hymns! Everybody worships differently.

She asked the pastor what she should do about her church responsibilities. She doesn't have major leadership responsibilities, but she does have some congregational care commitments. She didn't want to leave anyone in the lurch.

I thought this was a very healthy approach. For the record, I am the proud of the pastor too, who was my pastor when I was a youth. He told Mom that he wants her to find the church where she can heal and worship and grow, wherever that might be. Then he blessed her on her way. I think all ministers, at our best, can pastor people in this way as they leave our direct care.

These are the kinds of conversations that ministers and church members need to have. So many laypeople drift away, knowing they need something different for their current season of life but not wanting to hurt their pastors' feelings. But here's the truth: uncertainty and ghosting are much more painful for ministers than honesty and vulnerability. And departing laypeople don't get the closure they need to be able to get deeply involved in a new faith community.

I want to encourage both pastors and members to be open to - even to invite - some discomfort for everyone's benefit. Then each party can authenticity bless the other for the diverged journey to come.

Photo by Junseong Lee on Unsplash.

Recently I published an article on the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship blog about “Becoming a hybrid congregation.” It is essentially a part three in the “Is your congregation’s future hybrid?” series. (You can find parts one and two on my blog.) While the pieces on my blog are more about discerning and planning, the CBF post is about big picture thinking about whether and how being a hybrid church aligns with your congregation’s identity. You can find the CBF article here.

Photo by Chris Montgomery on Unsplash.

Pastor search teams are made up of capable people who know their church well and are invested in its future. That said, there is a steep learning curve for most search team members. They have never been involved in the search for a clergyperson. They might or might not have received training and guidance from their judicatory. They do not have the full picture of what a minister’s day-to-day schedule looks like. They have little to no human resources experience, and the experience they have may not serve a calling (vs. a hiring) culture well.

Pastoral candidates, then, have the opportunity and responsibility to provide guidance to search teams in the ways that they show up in interactions. This teaching falls into two buckets.

Assisting with process

• Search teams might not always know the order or range of tasks or the people that should or should not be involved in aspects of the search process. They might want to rush ahead before it’s advisable, be quick to express their desire for you to be the new pastor without getting consensus within the team or considering that you might be the “first” of a particular demographic (thus meriting more conversation with you and with the congregation), or make compensation promises before consulting the finance or personnel committees. You can help the search team slow its roll and think more carefully about the pieces of a healthy process and the purposes behind them. For example, you could ask about what exposure the church has had to a woman in the pulpit and the resulting reactions or who all might need to be involved in certain decisions for the search team to feel confident about them.

• Search teams are often laser-focused on their goal of calling a pastor, and they might not have taken the time to consider the opportunities and big picture questions that a pastoral transition prompts. Your queries might stump the search team, and you could wonder aloud what it would take for the search team to formulate the answers.

• Search teams sometimes neglect to ground the search process spiritually. The search process is long, the congregation is anxious, and the responsibility is heavy, so the team wants to cull as much “soft” work as possible. (I contend that spiritual grounding is not in any way soft or extra but the heart of the matter.) You could offer to pray for the search team and its discernment at the end of an interview, if no one else indicates a desire to close in prayer. You could also ask how their involvement in the search process has impacted their discipleship.

• Clarity and thorough communication (among the team, with the congregation, with the candidates, and with the judicatory) are often the biggest challenges for search teams. You can encourage both through questions such as, “What is the tentative timeline for your process moving forward?” “How are you bringing the congregation along as you do the good work of the search?” “Whom should I contact and by what means if I have questions about the search process?”

• Once a search team and church as a whole become excited about your arrival, they will want you in the church office tomorrow. You can lead by sharing the importance of saying goodbye to your current context well and having a bit of space between calls - that you want to show up in your new congregation on day one having done the emotional work and the rest that will allow you to focus fully on this new season of ministry. And, of course, you’re certain the calling church will want to celebrate well the good work of the interim minister. All of this intentionality honors important relationships and models healthy ones.

Becoming the pastor

• Simply the way that you enter a space says something about how you will be as a pastor. This is not about charisma, though. It’s about attentiveness and engagement. Think about how you want to show up in your interviews and what would make that possible so that the search team can begin to imagine what it would look, sound, and feel like to have you as a pastor.

• Stating your needs and setting healthy boundaries begin during the search process. For example, you might need to help a search team design an in-person visit that leaves space for downtime, nursing, and/or exploring the community on your own: “I am so excited to be with you and to see your church and your city! I want to be at my best when we are together. I will need transition time between events so that I can rest and process my experiences.”

• You will never be in a better position to share with your prospective new church what you require in terms of compensation. Be prepared to help the search team (and possibly other committees such as finance and personnel) think through the various pieces of pastoral compensation, particularly as they relate to your experience and the local cost of living. Urge them not to lump everything together (e.g., salary, insurance, retirement), because that obscures and often lowballs what your actual pay for the ministry being done is. You are teaching the value of the pastoral office, establishing your self-advocacy, and showing your attention to detail.

• Entering a new call is not like showing up to the first day of a secular job. You are assuming a position, yes, but also joining a faith community. You also might or might not be bringing family into that faith community with you. All of this merits more than a passing welcome on the church’s part. You might have to share explicitly with the search team and congregation what hospitality looks like to you. Is it helping with the move (or not)? Are there connections the church can help make regarding a spouse’s employment? What would help kids feel cared for? These invitational aspects come naturally to some congregations but not to others. It’s good and right for you to be clear about what you need so that you can engage deeply and meaningfully with your new congregation.

In short, remain curious and open and ask for what you need. This stance will get the pastor-parish relationship off to a solid start, paving the way for your mutual ministry. But beyond that, it will seed a way of thinking in the congregation that can bear fruit in future processes, pastor search and otherwise.

Photo by Paul Green on Unsplash.

Because of my work across seventeen denominations/faith groups and counting, I define my ministerial context broadly: the mainline Protestant church in North America. Even so, there are variations on a couple of themes at play in almost every coaching relationship I have with clergy and congregations.  

The first is the difficulty that church members have talking honestly to and being real with one another. Lately this challenge has manifested most obviously in political and cultural polarization. We rarely engage in vulnerable conversations with those who share our pews about how our faith impacts our civic engagement, use of privilege, or interactions with people different from us. This shrinks our discipleship to a personal relationship with God, to a commitment we share about and act on only at certain times and in particular spheres.     

But the problem goes beyond these bigger picture issues. Within our own congregations we can find ourselves so relationally hamstrung that we are not even able to tend effectively to the practicalities of doing church, such as talking about money, dealing with everyday conflict, or raising up new leaders. We interact at a surface level so that no feelings are hurt, and this lack of authenticity dings our trust in one another and prevents us from discovering our collective capacity for doing good. For too long we’ve been taught that niceness is the same as love, that our Jesus was meek and mild instead of a Savior who invested deeply in us by seeing and valuing us for who we are, telling us the truth about hard things, and giving us the power to forgive and heal.  

There is an incredible opportunity available to us in this season in the Church’s life. As we emerge from the pandemic, we will need to re-introduce ourselves to one another and to our larger communities all over again. Each of us has been changed by our experiences of the past year and a half, and even though we’ve found ways to stay connected during the pandemic, they have not fully captured the range of our griefs and graces. We can slowly and thoughtfully structure processes for sharing our experiences, worshiping together and more fully knowing and being known by one another. We can continue to utilize these processes going forward, building on them when the next tricky conversation arises. When we no longer feel so isolated even as we’re surrounded by people, we will be more ready to look beyond the sanctuary walls to partnerships and challenges that need the energy we’ve been using to guard our hearts. 

Next week I’ll share another big challenge I see for the Church in this season and the possibilities that accompany it.

Photo by Casey Thiebeau on Unsplash.

During this strange season we have witnessed leadership that has helped us feel more ready to face challenges. I have been admiring this kind of leadership in and from you! (We have also felt rage and despair at leadership that passes the buck or exists only for the benefit of those in charge.) Here, in my observation, is what makes someone a true leader:

Great leaders listen. Leadership begins with tuning in - to the voices of others, to data, to the movements of the Spirit, to one’s own deep knowing and misgivings.

Great leaders ask. There are times for certainty, but they are much fewer than we tend to think. Curiosity will usually get us further.

Great leaders encourage. Some people think that threats and shame make those around us work harder. That’s a recipe for sabotage and high turnover, not to mention an approach antithetical to the gospel.

Great leaders equip others. No leader has all the insight and skills needed to promote progress or to clear hurdles. Plus, isn’t it simply fun to see the people around us understand and use their gifts?

Great leaders take appropriate responsibility. They accept credit for what went well while sharing praise with others who contributed. They refrain from shifting blame to others just to make themselves look better.

Great leaders communicate. They get the word out in as many ways as possible, as often as possible, often to the point of feeling like they are grossly overcommunicating. (Rarely, if ever, is overcommunication a thing.)

Great leaders adapt. In a time of accelerating change, leaders must be nimble. They know that pivots aren’t signs of failure but markers of forward thinking and responsiveness.

Great leaders strive to grow. Lifelong learning is the posture of a great leader.

Great leaders care. They care about both the people whose faces they see on a regular basis and those they don’t but whose lives are impacted by their actions.

Great leaders rest. They know the world will keep spinning if they take a nap, and that they will be better able to do all of the above if they tend to their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual health.

Where do you see yourself reflected in these markers of a great leader?

Photo by KOBU Agency on Unsplash.

Have you ever wondered how someone in a similar life station can experience the world or believe so differently from you?

Or have you ever been in a conversation that seemed benign until the other party exploded, leaving you to think, “Well that escalated quickly.”

An organizational psychologist named Chris Argyris developed a model called the ladder of inference that might be helpful for understanding what’s happening in scenarios like these.

Basically, each of us filters the world around us in a different way. We select among observable data, often without thinking much about it. We add meaning to that slice of data according to our personal experiences or cultural background. Those assigned meanings lead us to make assumptions, and we then make conclusions accordingly. As conclusions pile up over time, they solidify into beliefs. We act based on those beliefs.

The ladder of inference explains how even in a congregation that averages 100 in attendance – or in a discussion between two people – the parties can end up having very divergent perspectives. It can also help us learn to explore situations through others’ eyes. How might differences at each rung of the ladder lead to ranges of beliefs and actions? Where are potential points at which further discussion might result in understanding and collaboration?

The ladder of inference could be a useful tool for committees or teams that are having trouble coming to agreement. Start at the bottom and work your way up. What are each person’s observations? What data do they choose to work with? Keep going up. Note where there are divergences. Hearing from one another is the starting point for real collaboration.

According to many studies done over the past couple of decades, clergy burnout is epidemic. At least half of all pastors leave vocational ministry for good after five years of service. (Some surveys put the number closer to 85%.) Fewer than 1/10 of clergy make it to retirement. These are sobering numbers.

Symptoms of burnout cover the range from relationship problems to poor physical health to feelings of isolation from God to anxiety and depression. But what is the root cause of this burnout? According to Sarah Drummond in Discerning Dynamics: Reason, Power, and Emotion in Change Leadership, “A leader becomes burned out not from long hours, but from working under unrealistic expectations set by others or themselves. When responsibility and power are insufficiently proximate in the work environment, burnout is possible.” This means that clergy who are tasked with making congregational shifts (or keeping a lot of people with disparate hopes happy) but who are not given the resources and authority to put changes in place are most at risk.

What can pastors do, then, to avoid burnout?

Get clear. Use every avenue available to you to find out what the stated and unstated expectations of the pastor are. Read old newsletters. Paw through meeting minutes the previous minister left behind. Know what is in legal documents. Information itself is power.

Get curious. Talk with formal leaders, informal influencers, and people who have a long history with the congregation (including those beyond the church, such as judicatory leaders and other clergy in the community). Whenever a weird dynamic pops up, probe what’s going on beneath the surface. Illuminating unhelpful norms is the first step in reshaping them.

Communicate, then communicate some more. Let everyone – especially your core leaders – know what you’re doing. Use the newsletter, the pulpit, and social media. Make your pastor’s reports available to everyone when appropriate. The role of minister is shrouded in mystery for some folks, leading them to believe you only work a few hours a week. That can prompt them to lay on the pressure even as they grab tasks. Sharing what you’re doing can reshape unrealistic expectations.

Create constructive feedback loops. Advertise when and how you hear questions and concerns best (e.g., a Monday morning email instead of a pre-worship ambush). State what kind of feedback is off limits, such as your parenting approach or hairstyle. Say how you handle anonymous notes. Setting boundaries allows you to claim – appropriately – your power.

Build support for new initiatives. Before you take any big steps, identify the people who will be most affected and get backing from them, particularly from those with the most clout. In other words, pool your power for positive purposes.

Say what you need. Could you use more time away for rest and renewal and professional development? An increase to a line item in the budget? Introductions to potential community partners? More layperson power for a particular ministry? It’s ok to ask, no matter what the response is. In fact, it’s an opportunity to share your thinking and to give folks a peek into what happens in ministry.

All of these approaches work toward more alignment between responsibility and power.

The church needs you and all your gifts for the long haul. So while the onus isn’t – or at least shouldn’t be – all on you to match expectations and authority, it’s well worth your effort to gain new awareness for yourself, shift others’  understanding, and seek more resources.

Recently I talked with a pastor who is searching for a new ministry position. Normally stalwart, she was in tears. She and her spouse had traveled for an on-site visit to a church seeking a pastor. This minister’s search team liaison had led her to believe that the face-to-face interview was merely a formality. There were one or two other clergy still in the running, the liaison said, but that was only because the judicatory required search teams to conduct in-person interviews with more than one candidate. And so this pastor had started looking at houses and schools. She and her spouse had allowed themselves to begin falling in love with the area. They were excited about their impending move.

The church ended up calling someone else as pastor.

As it turned out, the search team was not in agreement about the ranking of candidates coming into the on-site visits. The liaison didn’t intentionally mislead the searching pastor. She simply made some assumptions based on her own inclinations, then spoke out of them. She felt terrible about her misstep, but that provided little solace to the pastor who felt she’d had the rug pulled out from under her. That minister is not sure now whether she wants to remain in search and call - or in congregational ministry. This would be a big loss to the wider church.

When your search team speaks, make sure it is with one voice. When communicating with candidates, consider:

• What information has the team explicitly agreed upon?

• What would my motivation be for sharing beyond these parameters?

• What might the implications of overpromising be?

A unified voice is not just essential with candidates, however. It is important that all the team members be on the same page when talking with the congregation. If a church member hears one thing from one team member and something else from another, that can decrease confidence in the search team’s work (and by extension, in the called minister) and breed confusion and conflict - not a situation any clergyperson wants to walk into.

While it is normal to “click” with a particular candidate, then, make sure you are enabling that minister to show up as well as possible without setting up unrealistic expectations.

Hard conversations are everywhere – or at least are needed everywhere – these days. Politics, faith, and the practicalities of everyday life are converging in ways that necessitate honest and vulnerable dialogue if we are to grow as disciples and tend to the well-being of our congregations, our neighbors, and ourselves. Before we can have helpful hard conversations, however, we must establish some degree of safety for people to share their deepest worries and highest hopes. Trust is the bedrock of this safety, and I’ve written about what trust is and how to build it.

In this post, though, I’d like to focus on signs that trust-building isn’t complete. (In a sense it is never finished, because the work of mutual respect is ongoing.) If one or more parties is engaging in either silence or violence, that means said party does not feel safe enough to be fully seen, and more trust-building exercises are required to create the conditions for real dialogue.

As defined in the book Crucial Conversations, silence is a fear reaction that can manifest as sugar-coating one’s feelings, avoiding the real issue, or walking away altogether. Violence is also a fear response, and it consists of such tactics as defensiveness, blaming others, and using power over another in manipulative ways.

All of these approaches to difficult topics are common in congregational life, and they are very frustrating (at best) to those of us who lead. I wonder how our perspectives and the conversation might change, though, if we were able to keep in mind that silence and violence are the result of feeling afraid. With a more generous read, how might our willingness to engage and our approach itself evolve? What might we be willing and able to do with that generosity to continue upping the trust factor?

A few weeks ago my area was under a tornado warning. (Tornado season in Alabama is pretty much year-round.) I turned on the tv to watch the continuous weather coverage, which was led by a meteorologist known for his suspenders and his uncanny knowledge of local landmarks. He was telling viewers that rotation could spin up at any time, so we should follow the “course of least regret.”

That phrase has stuck in my head ever since. It is an encouragement to look at the big picture. Don’t try to run out for supplies in this weather. Don’t decide today is the day to fulfill your stormchaser dream. Get to a safe place and hunker down until the danger has passed. Otherwise, you might get the batteries or see a marvel of nature but lose your life in the process.

Often, though, we find ourselves traveling the path of least resistance instead of the course of least regret. This perspective is focused on our present comfort level. Don’t rock the boat. Don’t make anyone mad. Keep your imagination in check. We might stay safe in the short term, but we’ll have a lot of clean-up to do when suppressed emotions and long-held disappointments spin up.

While I like the thought of the course of least regret, I might reframe it more positively, like maybe the course of greatest possibility. We’re acknowledging what is going on in the present – as well as the potential impact – and responding pro-actively so as to keep future options open.

Where are you following the path of least resistance, and how is it limiting you? How might you take the on-ramp to the course of greatest possibility, earning trust among peers and creating more options in the process?

The most important ingredient in any process isn’t expertise or charismatic personalities or financial resources. It’s relationships. When the bonds are strong among the people involved, there can be productive disagreement, a full exploration of possibilities, deep investment in the work, and mutual support and accountability, all leading to forward progress.

The foundation of relationships is trust. Not simply predictability – I know your passions and hot buttons and how you’ll react to each being tapped – but shared vulnerability and risk-taking. Many congregational teams and committees start with some sense of predictability by virtue of the members attending church together for a long time. But most (if not all teams) will need to dig in before high-intensity work begins to develop the second-level trust that will allow for the most thorough and faithful process.

What does it look like to grow that deep trust? Here are eight Cs – from lowest to highest risk – to guide that essential work:

Clarity is getting straight within ourselves about our thoughts and commitments, then being honest with others about them.

Communication is putting our clarified knowledge and understanding out there, and in turn listening to others with open hearts and minds.

Curiosity is admitting we don’t have the whole picture and wondering about what we don’t know.

Compassion is showing care to and connecting at a heart level with others, believing the best about them as we do so.

Companionship is being present and authentic while still maintaining the boundaries that allow us to be clear and compassionate.

Consistency is showing up the same way every time and admitting when circumstances have thrown us off balance.

Conflict is being willing to disagree and to have our ideas improved upon.

Control release is relinquishing attachment to the outcome, trusting that the process will end up as it should so long as we bring our whole selves to it.

Jesus embodies each of these Cs in his ministry. He bookends his active period with a time of clarifying his identity and purpose in the desert and a prayer in the garden of “here’s what I want, but I’m here to finish the job.” His interactions with followers and adversaries alike are centered on getting his message out while asking about and listening to their hopes and fears. Time after time Jesus shows up for people, particularly the least of these, truly valuing them and radiating divine love for them. With those who want to hold on to what they know and have, he’s not afraid to offer a challenge. And in the end, he allows himself to be led to the cross so that he can expose all that is wrong with the hunger for power.

The eight Cs and the resulting trust can strengthen relationships not just within the team but between the team and congregation. The effects of deepened connections, in turn, extend beyond the process itself, cultivating beloved community with the Source of love at its center.

When I think of radical acts, I tend to think of using our voices (defined broadly) to make ourselves heard or our bodies to take up valuable real estate. Protesting, harassing – er, communicating with – our members of Congress, and creating art that reveals stark truths all fall into this category. Lord knows we need to leverage these types of advocacy in this cultural and political moment. They raise the profile of people under threat and put pressure on communities and leaders to act justly.

We have another tool to keep close at hand: deep listening – a kind of showing up in which we’re not just waiting for our turn to talk but being fully present to the speaker. It seems absurd that simply listening could be radical. But so few people feel known and valued, and when we feel disregarded, we tend to withdraw or act out. On the other hand, when we are heard and seen and accepted for who we are, we are able to operate out of gratitude and courage rather than shame. Just as importantly, listening without interruption or judgment confronts speakers with their freedom. This posture says, “You have the floor. Now, how are you going to use it?”

To be clear, people who are being treated unjustly are under no obligation to sit and listen. They have had to listen to those with power without being heard themselves for too long. But among people with like privilege, listening deeply can be a pathway not only for the hearer’s change but also the speaker’s. If you let me talk until I know I am are cared about – and until I can hear myself clearly – I will begin to understand what I need to do differently in order to live in hope.

Whom do you need to confront with their belovedness and freedom through your willingness to listen?

At a church with staff, there are often questions about whether and how staff should be involved in a senior pastor search. Here are some reflection questions to guide those decisions:

What does your polity say (officially and unofficially)? In some denominations there is a policy – or at least an expectation – that staff members serve at the pleasure of the senior pastor. This means that staff, ministerial and otherwise, typically have little to no input into a senior pastor/head of staff search. It’s important to know what your judicatory recommends or requires.

What do you need to know from the staff? Most laypeople don’t know much about the day-to-day operations of a church, much less the details of a pastor’s schedule and the weight of conflicting expectations. Staff could provide essential information that helps shape search criteria and interview questions.

Beyond “need to know” information, how might the wisdom of the staff positively inform the search? Pastoral staff in particular can speak to congregational needs and dynamics that could greatly impact ministerial fit.

How might the staff’s attachment to the search outcome potentially hinder healthy involvement? Staff at a church without a settled senior pastor are stretched thin (having picked up extra duties) and highly anxious (worrying about compatibility with the next senior pastor). And on occasion – if polity allows – a minister on staff might want to be considered for the senior pastor position. As a result, staff involvement might (unconsciously) be shaped largely by self-interest rather than investment in the congregation.

Use your responses to these questions to create clear expectations about what staff involvement with the search will look like: no involvement, information provider, ex-officio/non-voting role, or full member of the search team. No matter what you decide, remember to communicate frequently with staff to let them know how the search is progressing, and thank them often for their ministry during this challenging season.

Is your search team unsure where to begin with getting the word out about the ministerial opportunity at your church? Or has the search team started advertising, only to be disappointed by the number or caliber of profiles and resumes received? Perhaps journalist Malcolm Gladwell can help. In his 2000 book The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, Gladwell explores what it takes for an illness, a trend, or a message to go viral. Here are the implications for a ministerial search:

First, notice of your congregation's search needs to reach what Gladwell calls connectors, mavens, and salespeople. Connectors know and keep up with a wide swath of friends and acquaintances, simply because they enjoy the interactions. Mavens seek and share information, eager to improve the lives of those around them through the distribution of what they've learned. And salespeople persuade not just through their words, but also through their way of being in the world. Identify these three types of people in your search team/congregation's circles of influence - and there might be overlap - and leverage their natural amplification tendencies.

Second, ensure the notice about your open position that you give to your connectors, mavens, and salespeople is "sticky." Make it memorable by staying away from generic descriptors about your church ("welcoming," "loving," etc., even though these words hopefully apply to your congregation!) and hooking potential candidates with a compelling story or information about a ministry that is unique to your church.

Third, find the contexts in which candidates who might be good matches for your church are looking for position postings. Use official denominational channels. Buy space or airtime for your search announcement in print/online publications or on podcasts that your kind of pastor might be reading or listening to. Have your connectors, mavens, and salespeople work their contacts at the seminaries whose theologies align well with your congregation's and the conferences that potential candidates might attend. Use all of these outlets to push your sticky search message.

While your open position will not be a great fit for everyone who finds out about it, leaning on connectors, mavens, and salespeople, creating a sticky message, and seeking out the right contexts for identifying candidates whose skills and beliefs line up well with your church's needs will give you an ample stack of potential matches to consider.

In some denominations, most or all resumes or profiles come through a national or regional office. For congregations that receive this candidate information directly, however, there are several schools of thought about which applicants to consider:

Everyone. The search team will look at all resumes, whether they were sent directly by the candidate or by someone else on the candidate’s behalf.

Pro: you might find stellar candidates who weren’t on any influencer’s radar.

Con: you might have a tall stack to sort through, with resumes that need a closer read than those who were referred.

Consider: what difference does it make to your search team - if any - when a minister self-refers?  

Only candidates who are not looking. Some congregations don't like to advertise at all. Instead, they look for ministers who are doing good work where they happily serving.

Pro: this minister is likely competent, already being at a church.

Con: there are many great candidates out there who are looking for reasons other than because they are un-callable. (Maybe their positions were downsized, or they were victims of sexual harassment, or they have just not yet found the right fit.)

Consider: would you would want another congregation to lure your (content) minister away?

Only candidates who are referred by trusted sources. It's becoming a more common practice to solicit names from seminary faculty, consultants, and ministers who are friends of the congregation.

Pros: these candidates have built-in references and are well-networked.

Cons: you might get roughly the same list from every source, who in turn might be giving that list to other churches.

Consider: what questions you might ask your sources to uncover less obvious – and therefore a better range of – candidates?

Whatever approach your search team chooses for gathering candidate profiles, consider ministers who would stretch your congregation and remember to be hospitable in all your interactions. Communicate with everyone whose resume or profile you receive, and affirm candidates’ gifts even as you tell them you will not be continuing conversations.

When candidates find out your position is open, their first action will be to visit your church’s website. For a candidate to begin imagining a future with your congregation, it is essential to have a web presence that is informative and aesthetically-pleasing. Here are some important details to include:

High-resolution photos of church members in action. Use pictures of actual congregants (after asking parents to sign photo releases for the use of their children’s likenesses), and make sure at least some of the photos show people doing something other than sitting in a circle or around a table. 

Statements of identity and direction. Tell what your church values and what goals it is working toward.

Key ministries. How does your congregation connect with the community through giving money and providing hands-on help? What programs exist for the people who come through your doors?

Visitor information. Make it easy for candidates to understand more about your context with a map. Tell them about the culture of your church by sharing expectations about dress, accessibility details, and information for parents. Include a few carefully-chosen photos of the physical plant, such as a view of the church from the road.

Affiliations. A congregation’s denominational and community partners reveal much about its priorities.

Position announcement and related information (if conducting a pastor search). Putting your position description, church profile, and community snapshot on your webpage is an inexpensive way to share a lot of information with a wide swath of potential candidates. 

Your church’s website does not have to be expensive or overly-designed. It does need to be regularly updated, easy to navigate, and revelatory. The effort is worth it, not just for your pastor search but also for potential visitors to your congregation.

What would you add to this list?

When your congregation is between pastors, there will be times lay leaders will need to arrange for pulpit supply. Here are some tips for extending hospitality to your guest preacher:

Pay generously, or at least fairly. High-quality sermons generally take at least ten hours to research and write. Do the math and make sure you are compensating a professional with an advanced degree accordingly. Multiply the pay if there's more than one worship service. And if your preacher is coming from out of town, reimburse mileage and cover a hotel room.

Think through what it is reasonable to request a guest to do. Worship logistics vary greatly from one church to another, and there’s a lot that isn’t written on the order of worship. Plus, it's odd for a guest to give the welcome (“Welcome to this church. I’m here for the first time too!”) and greet people coming forward to make commitments at the end of the service. (“I’m happy to invite you into this faith community that I don’t belong to.”) Minimize the potential for confusion and awkwardness by asking the preacher to do only what laypeople or staff cannot. 

Ask if the minister would like to take on particular piece of the order or worship. For example, I like to read the primary scripture text myself, because I use inflection and pacing that set the stage for the sermon.

Make sure the preacher has a point of contact who will be onsite. Give a name and a cell phone number in case your guest gets lost or has car trouble. Let the minister know where to park and at which entrance the point of contact will be waiting.

Physically walk the visiting minister through the order of worship. Related to point #2 above, help the preacher know where and when to sit and walk and stand. Rehearse the communion liturgy, if applicable.

Don’t make the preacher chase down the check. Give payment before worship. That way the minister isn’t worried that getting paid depends on making hearers happy, and the minister doesn’t have to ask to be paid.

Thank your pulpit supply. Many guest preachers do so on top of many other work and personal responsibilities. Appreciate them for taking 10+ hours to prepare a sermon, 1-1.5 hours to be in worship (more so if there’s a second service), and however long to drive to your church.

Aside from the gifts that hospitality offers to your guest preacher, treating your pulpit supply well will let potential candidates for your ministry position know that they should check out your church. (Clergy talk to one another!)

Ministers, what would you add to this list?

I was done. I had spent four days presenting, networking, and wearing only moderately comfortable shoes at General Assembly. I was grateful and better for the interactions, but I was also ready to crawl into a hole and hibernate. The problem was, I had an 8:50 pm flight (delayed a half hour, naturally) and then an hour drive home once I landed. So I was grumpy when I boarded the plane.

Thank goodness I was booked on Southwest. At the start of my trip, I was glad because this meant I had a non-stop flight to the smaller and closer airport, plus I could check a bag for free. (A luxury these days!) At the end of my trip, flying Southwest meant that the crew was free of the staidness of other airlines. The safety demonstration, then, included reminders about not using your neighbor as a flotation device, putting on your own oxygen mask and then turning to your seatmate to decide “if it’s worth it,” and using the emergency exits and slides in case the captain decided to go shark fishing. The lead flight attendant used funny voices and a few dance moves to share other pertinent information. And when we landed, he informed us that the local temperature was 37 degrees. (At 11:00 pm, it was 90.)

I’m sure I wasn’t the only cranky person at boarding time. Yet, when we disembarked (late) into the muggy night, almost everyone I saw was smiling. This borderline-miracle seemed instructive. The flight attendant’s humor:

Caught my attention. Confession: I never listen to the safety information. It’s always the same. But I turned off my headphones because I didn’t want to miss any of the standup act.

Lifted my spirits. I was worried about driving home at my fatigue level, and I dreaded my human alarm waking me up early the next morning, as much as I couldn’t wait to see him. I felt more awake and refreshed for the journey after a few laughs.

Made me want to engage with others. As a raging introvert, I avoid conversations on planes by listening to podcasts and trying to nap. But my improved mood made me open to looking at internet memes with the stranger sitting next to me.

Was contagious. Laughter – like yawning – often is.

When in our work could a bit of well-timed humor do wonders for the atmosphere and productivity? Maybe a committee meeting when everyone is zoned out. Or a congregational gathering where those present are discussing unavoidable (and expensive) repairs to the building. Or even a funeral. (That’s probably not the best venue to work on your Jim Gaffigan “Hot Pockets” voice, but some self-deprecation might do.)

Good-natured humor humanizes and connects. Tuck it into your toolkit for a time when you need to shrink the dimensions of your meeting space.

You might be wondering why Searching for the Called emphasizes trust-building with candidates (and other affected parties) throughout the process, then pushes for extensive discussion and clarity around the nuts and bolts of the agreement in the covenanting phase. If congregation and clergy trust each other, shouldn’t that be enough? Why do we need to name and put expectations of one another and the terms of call in writing?

Leadership changes. The chair of your search team or governing board might know all the details that went into covenanting and compensation conversations, but what happens when that person is no longer in that position, leaves the church, or dies?

Memory fails us. We often give our recall ability more credit than it deserves. It’s easy to forget or mis-remember, and often the people in the room will later recount the same conversation in divergent ways.

Documents provide touchstones. How is the pastor-parish relationship going? You can compare its current state to the promises you put on paper, then course-correct as needed.

Assumptions breed problems. Unvoiced ideas lead to clashes in expectations, which can quickly escalate.

Transparency breeds even greater trust. Nothing undergirds a healthy relationship more effectively than meticulousness and forthrightness.

Get the details in writing. Your church will save itself a lot of conflict and heartache – which distract from the work of ministry - down the road.