United Church of God, an International Association
Council of Elders Meeting Report

 Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - Cincinnati, Ohio

         The Council of Elders began a pivotal set of meetings in Cincinnati today. Following the president’s update in the morning session, they discussed aspects of the Strategic Plan and the Operation Plan for 2002-2003. In the afternoon Richard Pinelli, Doug Horchak, Jim Franks, and Darris McNeely presented updates related to Ministerial Services.

President’s Update

        Church president Les McCullough filled the Council in on developments with the home office building, warning all that the ongoing construction meant the office condition would be messy at best when the group toured the building later in the day (it was!). But progress was also obvious to the Council members in the afternoon when they toured the site. Possession date will most likely be some time in April if the present pace continues.

        Mr. McCullough informed the Council of the administration’s growing concern about the health of several men in the field ministry. As many as five pastors may have to be retired within the next few months, most due to health concerns. He reflected on the possibility of some form of church-sponsored “hiatus” from job responsibilities to help such men recover their health before it reached a point that would require permanent changes, but no further discussion or action was taken in this meeting.

        Mr. McCullough and Treasurer Tom Kirkpatrick recently returned from Ghana, as has been reported previously. The president spoke of his favorable impressions of the newest United Church of God pastors, ordained on this trip. Mr. Kirkpatrick was able to help the Ghanaian pastors set up banking systems while there. Melvin Rhodes, editorial staff member and Lansing MI pastor, will travel to the country two or three times per year to continue to coordinate operations.

        Lastly, Mr. McCullough addressed the budgeting process in general terms. The administration will be proposing a budget with a 4.5% increase for 2002-2003, based on current trends.

Strategic Plan

        Strategic Planning/Finance Committee chairman Aaron Dean led discussion on the Strategic Plan proposal for 2002-2003, on which the General Conference will ballot May 5, 2002. The Strategic Plan has had no substantive changes, but the Council wishes to more clearly focus on matching the Church’s budget and operation proposals to the strategic objectives already in place.

        Two points of clarification were discussed. Gary Antion asked for more definition of strategic objective C-1, proceeding “with the development of an organization-wide communication structure.” He asked whether this was a new form to be contemplated, or was composed of existing structures? Mr. McCullough, media operation manager Peter Eddington, and Council member John Jewell listed several existing vehicles – the United News, Ministerial Quarterly, the president’s regular letters, letters from the Council, home office updates, the possibility of a “real” magazine for youth (the current production is Internet-based), among others.

        At Mr. Dean’s request, Mr. McCullough discussed the concept of what a “disciple” is, since this language is embedded in the Strategic Plan. He pointed out that he did not believe it to be synonymous with the term “member.” Rather, all those who receive the Good News or other literature are in fact “disciples,” he suggested. Richard Thompson agreed, recalling the gospel reference to a time in Jesus Christ’s ministry (John:6:66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.) when several of His disciples “turned back” and no longer followed Him. They clearly did not remain disciples, and probably never became members. As Mr. McCullough put it, “there are people out there who have a perception of what is being taught, and allow it to affect their lives, at least to some degree.” Mr. Pinelli added that many “new contacts” reported by field ministers are still very inexperienced in the truth of God’s Word, with some who have made contact with ministers unaware of which day of the week we worship, for example. Yet these are all disciples. Victor Kubik expressed his interest in watching what the figure might be for baptisms throughout this year from among these people whose initial contact with this way of life has been via the efforts of the United Church of God (there were 19 such baptisms in 2001).

Operation Plan

        Mr. Pinelli began the discussion on the Operation Plan with the lists of projects for Ministerial Services for the fiscal year 2002-2003:

• Regular conflict resolution (much less of late)
• One regional pastor conference (no regional conferences)
• Ministerial assignments (11 transfers planned, including three new hires)
• Regional church visits by regional pastors
• Ministerial services administration – one new office hire
• One festival coordinator conference (to plan 2003 festival)
• Continued efforts in the Education program in general, youth, ministerial, and focused education.

Mr. Eddington next outlined projects for the Media and Communications Services area of operations:

• The Good News – maintain current level (500,000) of circulation; continue current focus
• Subscriber development – to “bring people along” in exposure to and understanding of the message of the Church
• Booklets – “This is the United Church of God” next on the docket; two to three new booklets, reprints of up to 16 existing titles
• United News – update design and layout; continue schedule of 10 issues annually
• World News and Prophecy – increase circulation to 25,000
• Ministerial Quarterly – ongoing education for elders
• Bible study course – produce an “e-learning” version of the lessons on Web site
• Bible reading program – goal is to finish entire Bible within three years.

Ministerial Services Update – Ministerial Review

        Mr. Pinelli introduced the afternoon session. Messrs. Horchak, Franks, and McNeely presented material on three topics: the ministerial review program, the ministerial candidate program, and the possibility of obtaining a charitable grant from Lilly Endowment Incorporated for sustaining pastoral excellence.

        Mr. Horchak began the series. As he related, this program (annual ministerial review) was recently implemented, with favorable response from the field ministry. As envisioned, it has four components: self-assessment, peer review, management review, and congregational input.

        The fourth phase, congregational input, has not yet been installed. Implementation is proposed for this summer of 2002, but will require first educating both pastors and the membership as to the purpose and outcome. There are several components:

• Preaching and teaching – subjects, delivery
• Organizational and human resource skills
• Church programs and congregational development
• Visiting and availability to membership
• Approachability and communication skills.

There are some concerns:

• Is such a process even biblical?
• Chance for membership to target and criticize minister
• Members feeling it is their role to dictate pastoral performance
• Maintaining integrity of pastor/member relationship
• Discouragement of local pastor.

There is a process proposed to deal with both the components and the concerns:

• Congregational input would be anonymous
• Results would be shared only with the pastor
• Members would be educated on the process
• Pastoral ministry would be educated on the process
• The form used would be dual – local program input and pastoral performance input
• The congregational input process would be completed prior to the annual performance review by management (the local pastor could then share with management – i.e., his regional pastor – the aspects of the congregation’s input he wished to reveal).

        Mr. Horchak asked for comments or concerns. Don Ward addressed the first concern given – is this biblical? He pointed to the anonymous aspect and stated that he didn’t believe it was. Would it give members a chance to “hide behind a piece of paper?” he wondered. Other Council members then weighed in with their impressions. Gary Antion stated his concern that only the pastor knew of the congregation’s input. If there were truly difficulties, would they be hidden from management? Mr. Horchak stated “this is not the tool to deal with errant pastors.” In other words, difficulties will surface via other channels – this form is primarily for just what it says – congregational input. Clyde Kilough noted that the Council had already set the tone itself with its own anonymous evaluations of the Church officers. Mr. Holladay and Mr. Antion related their experiences with similar projects in their pastorates, with both stressing the positive outcomes they had encountered.

        Dr. Ward stated clearly that he had no problem with the sample form given to the Council members by Mr. Horchak. His chief concern, he said, was that members “don’t think their responsibility has ended up by putting it on this form.” If they have serious enough concerns, they need to discuss it with their pastor, the regional pastor or other Ministerial Services personnel.

        Mr. Horchak concluded his portion of the presentation by stressing the intent of Ministerial Services – they don’t want to proceed without Council support for the concept, which he understood to be there. The draft presented to the Council today is the result of four years of work, and is the best effort of the task force to date.

        Mr. Holladay thanked him for his presentation, and expressed his intent to bring the proposal back to the floor for action later in the week’s meetings.

Ministerial Candidate Program

        Mr. Franks addressed the Council next, presenting the Ministerial Services proposal for identifying and training candidates for the ministry. He acknowledged the work done in 1997-98 by a task force led by Darris McNeely, and a more recent effort coordinated by Ken Giese.

        Mr. Franks then recalled early criticism of the United Church of God for being “overstaffed” in its formative stages in 1995. Whatever the situation was then, we are truly understaffed now, with a ministry that is aging. The average age of a salaried elder in the United Church of God is now 56, and increasing, since there is no organized program to bring younger men into the field. By the end of this year, fully one-third of the employed ministry in the United States will be over the age of 60. Clearly something must be done, and soon.

        What does the Bible say? That must be our starting point. Matthew:9:38Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest. reminds us that we are to pray that the Lord of the harvest will send laborers into His harvest. Two points jump out – we should pray, and it’s God’s harvest. There will always be that harvest, and there may always be a shortage of laborers. John:4:35Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest. says that the field is ripe for harvest – there will never stop being a “crop” to be brought in, as God calls. 1 Chronicles:12:23And these are the numbers of the bands that were ready armed to the war, and came to David to Hebron, to turn the kingdom of Saul to him, according to the word of the LORD.,32 shows a time in the history of God’s people when their leaders understood the times they lived in – that need is ever critical. So what are “our times?”

        We have no Ambassador College in place to churn out laborers. We have, by our previous reckoning, small congregations. Many of our young adults who would be prime candidates for this field are heavily challenged by the needs of family and career, with less time than they would like to pour into Church programs. There are perhaps greater expectations of the ministry than in years past. A societal lack of commitment to groups in general, revealed by numerous public opinion polls, has its impact on the Church of God, which is fragmented in a way that would have been unthinkable to most of us even ten years ago.

        Current literature in the field of leadership training notes a “leadership gap” for many groups – how do we close it? Mr. Franks stated that we must first recognize the need we have for more ministers, and younger ones – no problem there. Then we have to assess exactly what those needs are, define standards we will use in choosing new men, develop a program, and involve current leaders. Ministerial Services has already asked pastors to identify individuals in their congregations who might possibly be called to the ministry – a list of 39 such men sits on Mr. Pinelli’s desk. So we now must move on to define standards, develop a program, and involve current leaders. According to Mr. Franks, we can either try to find new hires for the ministry by using those already trained at the old Ambassador College (a steadily shrinking “pool” of candidates) or the Ambassador Bible Center in a non-standardized “catch as catch can” way to try to plug the most glaring holes in the field, or we can start a standardized program to systematically develop new ministers.

        Ministerial Services is presenting a suggestion for the latter. In a nutshell, this is the summary of the program being brought for the Council’s consideration:

• Establish list of requirements for candidates
• Initial identification of qualified young adults
• A period of interviewing and reviewing those nominated to insure the best choices are made for…
• … a retreat/seminar (3-7 days) to be held annually to serve as an educational program for perhaps up to 15 couples to better equip them to serve in their local congregations and to choose candidates to enter the next phase of the program
• The incorporation of ABC into the program, with an “enhanced ABC” track for those chosen as ministerial candidates
• Choose anywhere from one to four men for a field mentoring program (one year in length). Perhaps seven or eight church areas in the country have large enough congregations to support such a training program
• Offer of employment, based on best judgment of all involved in the process.

        Mr. Franks presented cost estimates for both a full two-year cycle of the program, and the impact on the budget now being considered for 2002-2003, information which will be included in the budget packet sent to all elders in call and notice for the General Conference in May 2002. A possible “fast track” shortcut (direct from seminar/retreat to field mentoring, bypassing ABC training) exists for candidates who have already had AC/ABC training. Mr. Franks implored the Council to consider the ramifications of doing nothing, while acknowledging the full slate of business for this round of meetings. He requested the Council’s help in approving some version of the Plan, adjusted as they see fit, pointing out that even if immediately approved, it still requires two years of training before any new ministers are ready to be hired.

Sustaining Pastoral Excellence

        Indianapolis pastor Darris McNeely informed the Council about the potential of obtaining a charitable grant (from $250,000 to $2 million, over 3-5 years, may be requested) from Lilly Endowment, Incorporated, for sustaining pastoral excellence. A member of the Church in Indianapolis had given him material on the possibility of this grant, for which any organization with public charity status under Section 501-C of the Internal Revenue Service code is eligible. This is an attempt by the Eli Lilly Company to contribute to the stability of the nation’s communities by helping churches promote programs designed to sustain pastoral excellence.

        Mr. McNeely explained the work Lilly Endowment has done as a basis for this grants program. In engaging pastors about what helps sustain them in this demanding field of work, they note several responses that emerged frequently:

• Regular engagement in spiritual disciplines – prayer and ongoing biblical studies
• Periodic time apart from the congregation to engage in spiritual, intellectual and personal renewal
• Participation in ongoing biblical and theological study with colleagues
• Fostering sustainable friendships with colleagues and developing peer networks
• Regular efforts to hone the fundamental practices of ministry to a high level of competence
• Honor and recognition for their ministries and the efforts of their congregations.

        Mr. McNeely handed out information to the Council on what procedures need to be followed in applying for the grant, and what guidelines are followed in approving requests. One of the key elements is a desire by any applying group to develop ongoing programs to help its pastors maintain high levels of service to their congregations. Applications are due by June 15, and Mr. McNeely suggested a timeline to meet this deadline.

        The Council discussed the proposal, with response being uniformly favorable. As noted, the charitable offer by Lilly Endowment is their way of helping churches “prime the pump” of pastoral renewal, to help strengthen churches, and thereby the nation. Lilly has no involvement with the individual programs, only wishing to see that there are such ways to encourage and strengthen the key individuals in the nation’s churches.

        Clyde Kilough pointed out that even if the Church did not receive a grant, the exercise of putting in place a program to work with pastors to prevent “burnout” and “recharge the batteries” would be well worth the time and expense of doing it. Mr. Antion asked about the level of the grant to be given – if it were to be the high end ($2 million for five years), would we want to budget the equivalent – $400,000 per year – after the grant expired? Robert Dick expressed his understanding that the Church could request what level of grant it desired, and Mr. McNeely agreed that this is correct. Mr. McCullough referred to the minimum request level of $250,000 over five years, and stated that he could not see any reason why the Church would not want to budget $50,000 per year for such a program even after the grant ran out.

        The Council then resolved to authorize the president to appoint a task force to develop the grant proposal in accordance with the Lilly Endowment application procedures. The ballot was unanimous from the quorum present (Mario Seiglie was absent while teaching a class at ABC). 

-Doug Johnson

© 2002 United Church of God, an International Association