What I’m thinking about is how we as a church arrive at placing persons in that position.

The second thought, it seems to me, relates to what I’m talking about here: how to negotiate expectations from the congregation on the one hand and ministry passion/vision of the pastor on the other (in cases in which there is a disconnect). It seems to me that indigenous leadership is advantageous here because “one of my own” can tell me things that an outsider who won’t be appointed here for very long anyway can’t as effectively.

That said, my biggest frustrations and failures have come when there is a serious disconnect between my passion for ministry and a congregation’s expectations of their pastor.

Richard:
I appreciate the points you make in particular… (1) About adaptability not necessarily translating into timely effectiveness. If I were making that comment, I would say that having a good attitude and being adaptable is not the issue so much as optimum effectiveness on the part of the pastor and the congregation. I would think that happens when clergy and congregations mesh well and an important component of that would seem to be like affinities regarding context and place for ministry.

(2) The comment about the “extraction” paradigm for ministry preparation seems especially germane to the discussion. Are there ways to better interweave intellectual formation, spiritual formation, ministry formation, etc than our current approach? I have to think the answer is yes. I don’t think it’s simply a matter of getting people to have a ministry job or a student pastorate throughout seminary, though that is well and good. The picture in my mind is something more in the constellation of apprenticeship, coaching, and mentoring.

Matt has some good interaction with my post on his blog. I recommend checking it out.

Rick:
Thanks for the point about the “McMethodism” of the past. This is relevant not only because the churches are not the same, thus lacking the need for the clergy cog in the right place for everything to keep the moving parts in order, but also because the context in which those churches are called to minister is not the same.

Goat:
Welcome to the blog; thanks for the comments. The raise is definitely a good thing, but like you say, if that’s all it is, there are better raises out there in a less stressful and complex job! The “slot the salary” approach is definitely old school. So, while provision for the family is a legitimate issue for the clergy, that isn’t the only part that demands satisfaction for us to get all jazzed up. Good stuff.

I doubt that the senior pastor of a church of 3000 would say, “It is just like pastoring a really big version of the east Texas church of 30 that I stared at.”

I also think that there is not a whole clear vision for what the fate of the rural churches in our conference will be. The statements about “Every church, no matter its size, is a valid ministry” comes across as lip service in light of the new discussions of accountability and fruitfulness.

Our system seems to be predicated on the assumption that there are two kinds of people: ordained and non-ordained. As far as appointments go, ordained people are all functionally alike: we can all preach, administer sacraments, and lead the congregation. Spiritual gifts and the culture, of pastor or congregation, are simply ignored as irrelevant.

Our rhetoric on this has been changing of late. I don’t think the changes reached the level of conviction for most of our leaders yet.

As to raising up more pastors from small town & rural areas, part of the problem is also cultural. Our model for training pastors is to extract them from their culture, re-enculturate them – usually in variants of urban & academic culture – and then send them back. Sure we have local pastors, but they often don’t get the respect or opportunities of those who have been enculturated in the mainstream system.