SUMMARY NOTES
IN-PROCESS REVIEW OF MINISTRY
ST. JOHN’S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, HOUSTON, TX
SEPTEMBER 26, 2009
Members of Session, Pastor Jon Burnham, and members of the Pastor Nominating Committee (PNC) participated in a Transition Workshop on Saturday, May 2, 2009. This workshop was adapted from the FastTrac Workshop which is offered three to six months into a new ministry. Pastor Burnham has served St. John’s as pastor for two years – hence the adaptation to an in-process review of the ministry of the church.
Facilitators for this event, sponsored by the Committee on Ministry (COM) of the Presbytery of New Covenant, were The Reverend Diane K. Prevary and Elder Jim Bushong, a member of First Presbyterian Church, Huntsville, TX. The primary purpose of this workshop was to assist the pastor and session to identify expectations of the PNC and pastor as he began this ministry, and of the session as the ministry has progressed, informed by the observations of the PNC, who represented the congregation in the search for a pastor. After introductions, D. Prevary read and led a time of reflection on The Word (from Numbers, Chapter 11), followed by an explanation of the process by J. Bushong.
The larger group then divided into two smaller groups. Jim Bushong stayed with the session and Diane Prevary met with the PNC and Pastor. The published agenda for the day included the following questions, for which the responses of the PNC and Pastor are recorded below. The input from the session will follow this information.
How did you describe the ministry of St. John’s during your search. What did you tell Jon were the leadership skills needed to support the ministry of your church?
1. Documented in the Church Information Form (CIF) and a part of
conversation between Jon and the PNC was the description of St. John’s as an “outreach” church. A significant portion of the church’s ministry occurs outside the quadrangle on which the buildings sit. In seeking a pastor to support this ministry, the PNC was struck by Jon’s commitment to social justice and mission, as articulated in his Personal Information Form (PIF).
The need for pastoral care was discussed by the PNC with Jon early on. Given the many pastoral changes over the preceding seven years, it was particularly important that the new pastor get to know the congregation and to be the presence of the church in their lives during emergencies and/or personal crisis. Less clear was whether general visitation would be a priority in the church’s ministry. Is there a segment of the congregation who would like the pastor to visit just to visit? This is yet to be explored.
The particular leadership skills the PNC sought to support the ministry of St. John’s, were:
preaching that inspires and challenges; strong over-all worship leadership;
administrative skills requisite to function as head-of-staff;
ability to develop leadership among members of the church;
energy and creativity to strengthen St. John’s ministry;
to be a discerning agent of change;
gifts to nurture spiritual development.
Specifically mentioned as results of putting these skills into action were the preaching and worship services; the way Jon stepped up when changes were necessary early-on in his ministry (session restructuring); and opportunities for spiritual development through centering prayer, support groups and the weekly prayer group.
How was the process for dividing and assigning the responsibilities for St. John’s ministries described in discussion between the PNC and Jon? How is that working in practice? What could improve your church’s leadership?
Session was downsized immediately prior to Jon’s arrival, but no realignment was in place for how responsibilities would be carried out by a smaller session. Within 2 months of arrival, Jon was asked/directed by the session to design a process for restructuring session’s tasks/assignments. The result was the establishment of Ministry Teams, for which it would not be necessary for an elder to be “in charge.” Overall, this has not been viewed as an effective model and in January 2010 session will be increased to 15, committees will become the norm, and elders will be assigned to each committee.
Leader training is essentially through participation on ministry teams/committees. There is no formal plan for leader development, although an extensive officer training event was conducted for incoming elders last year and was well received by those participating.
The initiative to change the size of session was a recommendation coming out of the Acts 16:5 strategy. Some of the recommendations of the Acts 16:5 Task Force were adopted by session, some were not. The major points adopted became the goals for ministry that were communicated through the CIF. They are:
Develop more effective servant leaders: The more members capable of leading ministries, the greater will be the congregation’s ability to reach and serve the greater community.
Create worship experiences that nurture personal spiritual growth: The worship service is the primary activity that connects the congregation to God and helps the congregation grow as disciples. It is also the activity which is the key to recruiting nd retaining new members.
Strengthen relationships so that people feel connected to God and to each other: Welcoming ministries for prospective members and small group/caring opportunities for the congregation help connect each to one another.
Encourage all ministries at St. John’s to be “missional” and reach out into the greater community: The mission of the church must be to meet the needs of people outside the church community if we are to draw the unchurched to Jesus Christ and to St. John’s.
It is not known how widely the above goals are known in the congregation, however, or even by the current session. There was no support system put in place to see the Acts 16:5 recommendations through to completion.
Overall, there is a need for a process that allows new ideas to be floated and evaluated for implementation. The church needs to cast a vision for the future.
Generally there appears to be suspicion of new ideas, or at the very least a lack of trust of those who would implement new ideas.
What are the three most pressing challenges for your church’s ministry?
Change: how much can we handle/stand; who leads it; are we willing to entertain any?
Leadership: who is in charge? Session/minister/combination of both/“First Families”?? How can we more equally share decision-making and trust decisions that are made?
Scabs which continue to be picked: Lynn Hargrove’s resignation; presence of Ghanaian Church (see note under “Further Recommendations”); session restructure.
Trust: how do we build?
The questions that guided the session discussion were in close parallel to those directed to the PNC and the pastor. They were:
What are the three most successful ministries your church brings to your community? How is each carried out?
Our various outreach projects (beyond the specific ministry team); e.g., blood drive, VBS, Living Gift, local and global outreach, Anchor House, community Bible study, providing home for Ghanaian NCD, facilities ministry, Presbyterian Women, Caring Committee’s ministry, Music ministry, Welcoming and inclusive ministry
Ministry responsibilities are carried out along traditional lines. Most of the activities listed above have been a part of the St John’s ministry for a number of years. They are run by members of the congregation who have been dedicated to them for some time. Leadership for most activities is developed from among the other members who work in each area. Oversight by session committees is not considered necessary unless issues arise or new challenges are identified.
How are the responsibilities for St. John’s ministries divided and assigned? How does that work in practice? What could improve your leadership?
The tradition based leadership style noted above makes additional leader designation only necessary when new projects are undertaken. Given the circumstances of the pastoral leadership of this church for the past 10 years the congregation has developed a strong, almost self-sufficient lay leadership tradition. This was noted with pardonable pride by session members who attribute their survival as a viable congregation with their ability to unite under stress and work toward the common goal of carrying out their ministry to the community and each other. At the same time it was noted that this “unity under stress” causes potential conflict issues to be brushed aside in the busy-ness of accomplishing ongoing ministry activities.
From session comments it was evident that they receive and give much to their ministry to community and each other and that the work of the church continues to be successful.
The session focused immediately on issues in pastoral leadership when asked to respond to the third question in this category. There are mixed opinions about the effectiveness of pastoral leadership and about worship at St John’s. Everyone sees Jon’s effectiveness as being diminished by his attempts to accommodate competing demands for his time and talents. There was general acknowledgement that he has changed his preaching style in response to feedback he has received. There is a sense that he is reluctant to be open and genuine with the congregation and most attribute that to the criticism he has received in attempting to establish changes to past operational norms. When asked about session’s involvement in giving feedback to the pastor it was noted that the personnel committee had conducted an annual review survey of the session and had passed the data along to Jon at a formal meeting. There is a perception among many of the session members that Jon does not respond to feedback appropriately. There is an equally strong sense that they have not really been able to get to know Jon as a person, but rather someone that he is trying to become in response to criticisms and recommendations.
What are the three most pressing challenges for your church’s ministry?
Without exception the session sees issues related to the congregation’s acceptance of Jon as pastor as the most significant challenge to its continued successful ministry.
OBSERVATIONS FROM FACILITATORS
Introduction
This event was planned in direct response to a recommendation by a member of the Committee on Ministry who made a Triennial Visit to the St. John’s session on behalf of COM. There appeared to be an inordinate amount of conflict between some members of session and the pastor that the COM member believed both parties needed some time to reflect on their roles and responsibilities, as well as their shared relationship. Pastor Jon Burnham contacted Diane Prevary and asked if she and Jim Bushong could be available to lead a FastTrac event. Given the focus of FastTrac is to encourage a healthy start to a new ministry, Prevary and Bushong agreed to adapt that workshop to be a in-process review of St. John’s ministry.
History
St. John’s has had a very difficult history over the past 10 years. In that time there have been seven pastors, including installed, interim and the current installed pastor. They have lived in an almost constant state of transition – of flux.
Observations
Jon entered the life of this church under extreme circumstances. He was in essence attempting to join in the leadership of an in-tact work group; i.e., a group that had worked, suffered, lived and succeeded with intermittent pastoral leadership to a point that they have developed a strong, successful lay-leadership core and tradition. Either the PNC, being a part of that core, saw no particular need to emphasize that aspect of the congregation in their communication with Jon or he did not perceive that as any different from any other church. Any pastor entering this situation would have had a difficult transition. Owing to the history of the church the issues of acceptance and inclusion that are experienced at most churches were and are much more intense at St John’s.
The very attributes and strengths that the congregation possesses are working most strongly against Jon being included as a full partner in its ministry. Communications between and among the lay leadership are clear and active. They frequently do not include Jon. As a point of illustration, one of the issues raised in the session time was an incident that occurred around the death of a church member. It seems the family left a message for Jon when the death occurred (Friday). Jon did not get the message until the next day and contacted the family immediately. He was told that the family had made plans for the next day (Sunday) and so he arranged to call on them on Monday. Session members reported that Jon was unavailable to call on Friday as it was his day off and that his conduct in contacting the family and the subsequent delay in visiting was inexcusable. When asked how the family members of the deceased felt about this, session members reported they were fine with the situation. It was clear, however, that several session members and, by report, other congregation members are still extremely upset by this and judge Jon negatively by that incident. When asked if any session member had brought this to Jon’s attention it was apparent that they had not. When asked about this incident later, Jon was surprised and indicated that he was unaware that this was an issue with anyone. In this case their strong sense of caring for each other is operating to foster a perception of lack of caring and insensitivity where none exists.
The dedication to the strong traditional ministries to the community by this congregation is evident and provides a reason for existence. How the church is moving into the future is less clear. The CIF notes and the PNC and Jon substantiate that the Acts 16:5 initiatives, noted above, are advertised as the foundation of the vision for the church. Some session members acknowledge that a previous session had approved them and their inclusion in the CIF. When new (first year) session members were queried about them they were unaware they existed. This gap between the published vision and reality may account for the lack of success in session reorganization. The new structure was designed to support efforts that were anticipated but never pursued.
Recommendations
Although it seems strange to note after two years, it is clear that Jon and the session must be given the opportunity to get to know each other in relationship to their shared leadership of the ministry of this congregation. The congregation will be electing a new session members to be installed in January. This will provide a benchmark that will allow such a re-introduction to occur. In the meantime, both Jon and the current session members can recognize the disconnects in their relationship and work together to communicate more effectively and completely.
The facilitation team recommends further:
a. that the new session( 2010) schedules a facilitated transition to leadership and planning event focused on achieving a shared vision of the future ministry of the church.
b. that a time be set aside at each session meeting for sharing “concerns of the church.”
The objective of such a time is to allow session members to share what they are hearing and make decisions about when and by whom a response is appropriate.
c. that the session develops and implements a process for leadership development.
FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMITTEE ON MINISTRY
Our experience with the leadership at St. John’s compels us to make the following recommendations to COM
a. require the leadership of churches entering new pastoral relationships to participate in FastTrac and make this requirement a part of the Pastoral Call information as the call is being negotiated.
b. ensure that Triennial Visits are always conducted by a team of at least two persons representing COM.
c. strongly urge New Church Development Ministries to develop and publish guidelines for the relationship of nesting congregations with established churches. A significant amount of the current conflict at St. John’s is related to expectations surrounding the presence of the Ghanaian congregation. No one on session seems quite sure what they are permitted to expect and/or require of the nesting congregation, and have found NCD unhelpful in this arena. An added dimension to this situation is the cultural difference(s) between the two congregations and a feeling that there is no where to turn for help in sorting through these differences in order to build a good relationship.
Diane Prevary
Jim Bushong
September 26, 2009
