This has yet to come into effect in Hamilton Conference although there is quite a bit of experimentation going on from Presbytery to Presbytery.  I am not aware of any experimentation Pastoral Relationswise to happen in Erie Presbytery.

Not in Niagara either as far as I know. Basically it's a move in the direction of a kind of unofficial episcopacy, although few will admit it. Poorly thought out, driven by concerns over finances, human resources and legal issues rather than by any real grappling with ecclesiology.

Hasn't happened yet.  ANW is not even piloting anything in that area (although many other conferences are).

It is happening in Bruce, Presbytery in Hamilton Conference and in Toronto Conference effective July 1 2013. It is too soon to see how it is working out, as it hasn't started yet. You can see how it will roll out in TC here: http://www.torontoconference.ca/conference-news/238-effective-leadership-updates

It's happening soon in BC Conference - possibly around the same time as Toronto Conference, although I'm not certain. Most in Victoria presbytery seem to be really looking forward to it.

Hi DKS,

So it is.  I knew that Bruce had agreed to pilot something.  It seemed much more universal than pastoral relations.

Grace and peace to you.

John

For me the question would be why they're looking forward to it? Does it have anything to do with ecclesiology, or are they just happy to be bucking the work up a level so that they don't have to deal with the challenges involved because of either frustration over lack of resources, or fear of making a mistake?

Bucking this to Conference simply centralizes more and more power in the so-called "higher courts" of the church and moves more and more responsibility farther away from the congregations.

From my perspective, I think it's an idea with merit.  I imagine that issues coming forward to Pastoral Relations may have evolved over time, with greater legislative imperatives factoring in, and therefore we may benefit from having paid accountable staff with the right skill sets to address such issues - as opposed to the current model where issues are addressed by well-meaning volunteers from Presbytery - possibly not always in the most timely or most effective manner.

It would also potentially free up volunteers at Presbytery level to engage more in missional activities that strengthen the local congregations.

RevSteven - can you explain to me your question about it having to do with ecclesiology? 

It's a matter of how the church governs itself. By moving what is perhaps the most important issue (in the minds of a lot of people anyway) yet one step further away from the congregation, you're centralizing decision making in a church which in the pews is becoming more and more congregational. In other words, you're increasing the divide between the denomination and the laity. For example, in one Conference (London) they're experimenting with a model that not only sees Conference taking care of the administrative matters around pastoral relations (that might be worth looking at) and are actually requiring (in my view in a way that contravenes the Manual) that any minister wanting to apply to a church in London Conference sends their resume not to the Joint Search Committee anymore, but to the Conference Office, and someone at Conference then decides which ones to forward to the Search Committee. That's a de facto episcopal system, where the balance of power is tilted dramatically toward the Conference and away from the congregation.

We're making our decisions based on a corporate model - what's most "efficient" and what's "safest" rather than by considering how the decisions are actually going to impact the denomination and how it operates and which level of church authority should flow out of. On this issue, assuming that all authority comes from Christ, the next question is does it flow from Christ to the local church and then from there onward through the system, or does it flow from Christ to the Conference, with the higher courts (which are more and more isolated from the congregations - especially if it ends up being staff who are vested with these responsibilities) then becoming powers unto themselves with great control over pastoral charges, even including who gets to be interviewed for a vacant ministry position?

Instead, we just shrug and say, "it's a lot of work and it's hard. Maybe we can't do it. We'll just let somebody else do it."

Hi Rev. Steven Davis,

And in a denomination with various courts being increasingly vocal about how decision making power is taken out of their hands we have this naked power grab conspiring with an equally naked abdication of responsibility.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I think the excitement has more to do with what Carolla said - it frees up resources and volunteers to do more missional activities.

I have no problems with this - but I would have a problem if the conference started deciding which ministers can apply for which position. 

I think it is a great idea (and which idea was ever perfect??)  Having seen volunteers/lay or ordained struggle through tough PR issues where actual people are waiting for just outcomes, I think it is just and transparent to train, equip and monitor PR processes at the Conference level.  There is great potential for pain & prolonged confusion in some situations.

I'm sure there are some tasks of PR that don't really need the switch, but the ones with the deepest emotions attached need a new approach.

What Birthstone said.

In my (unique?) position, I can see where much of the difficulties that can be/could be avoided by standardized HR practices and trained, accountable professionals,

Is this complex and difficult: yes!  Is this 'too Anglican'? Um, as an Anglican I can say aboslutely: I do not know. Do any congregants know how that works, unless they're involved in leadership at a ministry site?

It will be interesting to see how ANWC will handle this. We are a big Conference with a huge geography. Has Manitoba and Northwest Ont done anything yet?

Edit: I had a thought right after I hit save.... This seems to be a great idea for the more concentrated conferences in Ontario, Quebec and maybe BC Lower Mainland area (I know it is a fairly large conference). How do people see it working when there is large geography involved? (speaking as someone whose pastoral charge gave our pastoral relations committee much work a few years ago)

Since most local churches and presbyteries don’t have access to HR resources I see this as a great opportunity for conferences to hire HR staff and be able to share their resources.  We have 180 staff where I work with one fulltime HR Manager. 

The downside as mentioned is for the assumption/probability that hiring etc is done solely at the conference level. 

I know in London Conference this is not the case – the local church and presbytery will be involved in the process.

MNWO is piloting/experimenting some alternate ways of doing PR work.

However I see the need for specialized skills that volunteers do not have, I have to agree with Stephen that there are issues of ecclesiology that need to be discussed

Who makes decisions?  is the big one.  and WHY do they get to make those decisions?

What is our understanding of the relationship between the congregation , the clergyperson, and the wider church? 

And the basic one---why are we doing this?  WHat perceived problem do we think it will solve?  WHat is the trade off?  (all decisions have a trade off, sometimes the law of unintended consequences comes into play when we fail to [or choose not to] ask about the potential trade off before making/enacting a decision)

The Connex 36, out in October, will have a run down of the Conferences piloting their 'effective leadership' processes and the details of how search and selecton works in each setting.

Please note that the decisionmaking still rests at the pastoral charge/ministry site level; the process is to ensure the employability of everyone in the selection pool.

Again, there is more afoot.

In the past few years, the responsibility for the camps & ministries in London Conference has moved from Presbyteries to the Conference office. At least in part.  Is this a national move?

Now the move is to take responsibility - in part - for Pastoral Relations and discipline (don't  forget that is part of the model as well) to the Conference level.  It will mean more staff time.  the idea is that your presbytery colleagues won't be the ones sitting in judgement if some issue is raised. 

Now, there has been push-back from some quarters in London Conf re: the vetting of resumes by the Personnel officer.  I think that may not totally be the case as it was first explained.  You can read about it and watch the slide shows if that helps

http://www.londonconference.ca/content/effective-leadership-test

The optics of this seem to be moving more and more from the presbytery level to the conference level.  Does this mean more time for minssion or does it simply reflect the burned out nature of that small pool of volunteers who are, it seems, always the ones who take on the tasks.  We live in interesting times.

The responsibility for two of the camps in BC Conference has been moved to the Conference office, however the others are still under local control. 

Conference Personnel Officers have always had the responsibility of verifying the employability of applicants for ministry positions.

This issue has two sides for me.  I have seen the eagerness to place insiders in desirable locations effectively prevent a level playing field for many applicants.  For this reason and for general efficiency, I advocate the use of an external HR agency to receive applications from both pastoral charges and ministers and compiling short lists for both pastoral charges and ministers to streamline the interview process.

On the other hand, if the presbytery or conference pastoral relations people have a realistic and deep awareness of the personality and needs of the pastoral charge, they can be effective in working towards a good match.

Both processes can and do go wrong.

OVersigth responsibility and operations are two totally different things.  All incorporated bodies are responsible to the conference not the Presbytery.  That does not mean they are run by the Conference...

The camp that is located within the boundaries of our presbytery had, until recently, actually been owned by our presbytery. BC Conference now owns it and is responsible for oversight - however it is, of course, run by locals.

Yes, they have. But it's been after a congregation has made a decision. The decision then gets vetted through the personnel minister to make sure the person is eligible for call or appointment. I remain uncomfortable with CPMs being involved in the process at the start. It may be convenient. It may help resolve some legal (or at least legalistic) issues. But in my opinion it's open to abuse, and it's vesting CPMs with substantial, almost episcopal-like powers without that really being discussed within the church.

I am not sure it is at the end of the process.  I am of the understanding that a check for employability and/or red flags on the personnel file happens fairly early--before an interview.  But the description above was of the CPM deciding which resumes would go to which congregations.  And that is more than an employability check.  That si a screening.

I've seen it done both ways. So the JSC interviews and decides who they want to call, then asks the CPM for a check. Or the JSC decides who they want to interview, and asks the CPM for a check before conducting the interviews. But I'm very uncomfortable with the London Conference process that asks for resumes to be sent first to the Conference Office and then to the JSC after being checked for eligibility. But in a church that is so - shall we say - diverse, where there's often not as much trust as there should be between folks of different theological persuasion, I can imagine it's only a matter of time before someone claims that their application wasn't forwarded because they're ... well, of a different theological persuasion than the person doing the checking.

I'd have no problem with saying that before interviews are conducted, those being interviewed should be checked for eligibilty, but I'd like the process to start at the level of the JSC and not at the Conference. That's placing too much power in the hands of Conference staff.