Overture No. 1, 2014 (A&P 2014, p. 506–07; 398–99)
Re: Long-term pulpit vacancies and interim moderators
This overture from the Presbytery of Kamloops was referred to the Life and Mission Agency (Ministry and Church Vocations). It focuses on the fact that pulpit vacancies in some congregations are expected to extend for long periods, if not indefinitely. Such a situation would arise, for instance, when a congregation has no plans to seek a minister because it lacks the necessary funds. In these situations, the role of the interim moderator shifts from one of shortterm responsibilities – guiding a congregation during the search and call procedures for its new minister while ensuring coverage of pulpit and pastoral needs – to one of long-term relationships.
The overture expresses concern for congregations whose called minister has been appointed to be interim moderator of a congregation with a long-term pulpit vacancy. The overture assumes that the minister’s appointment as interim moderator for long periods will have a negative impact on the minister’s own congregation: the congregation where the minister is the called minister will be deprived of the time and energy the minister spends with the other congregation. The overture proposes a remedy in which the minister’s own congregation agrees to share some of the minister’s time and energy with the other congregation in exchange for the other congregation paying some share of the minister’s stipend and allowances. The overture expresses the opinion held by its authors that congregations should stop giving an honorarium to their interim moderator since this practice is inconsistent with the church’s understanding of stipend. The overture requests consultation with sessions and presbyteries experiencing longterm pulpit vacancies so that a fair and consistent practice in harmony with the church’s understanding of stipend might be established.
In its interim response to the General Assembly in 2014, the Life and Mission Agency (Ministry and Church Vocations) provided data about the prevalence of congregations with vacant pulpits that are not seeking a new minister. (A&P 2014, p. 398–99) Indications are that these congregations are increasing in number. A snapshot view in 2003 reveals that there were 128 such pastoral charges (17% of 771 pastoral charges; by 2013, there were 160 such pastoral charges (22% of 736 pastoral charges).
The interim report also noted that concerns about this trend have been voiced in recent years by presbyteries where the number of vacant pulpits approaches or even exceeds the number of ministers serving in congregations. Almost without exception, the burden of concern has been for the health and well-being of the ministers. The presbyteries observe the ministers already working full-time in the congregation (or congregations) that called them. Appointment as interim moderators then finds the ministers devoting additional time and energy to another congregation. The ministers continue to offer the same pulpit and pastoral leadership in their own congregations as previously. While at times there may be a direct impact on the minister’s own congregation, for instance if the launch of a new initiative is delayed, the larger concern has been the loss of the minister’s personal and family time. This is wisely valued as a resource that is critically important for the health of the minister, the minister’s family and ultimately, the minister’s congregation.
The interim report continued with an analysis of the remedy proposed by the overture, pointing out a number of problems with it. Nevertheless there was good agreement that the issues the overture has raised are important. For this reason the Life and Mission Agency (Ministry and Church Vocations) requested and was granted permission to survey presbyteries about the ways they are addressing the needs of congregations with long-term pulpit vacancies and to report to the next General Assembly. It is this study that forms the subject of this report. The assistance of the Clerks of Assembly in reviewing the survey results and discussing suggestions for moving forward is gratefully acknowledged.
The Study Process
The two-part survey emailed to presbytery clerks was designed to be completed on computer and returned electronically. Some sections could be completed by filling in boxes or blanks, while other places left room for inserting comments or attaching presbytery standing orders.
The first part of the survey was unique to each presbytery: an Excel file that listed the congregations in that presbytery as reported in the 2014 Acts and Proceedings. Respondents were asked to choose, for each pastoral charge, the option that describes how it is meeting its needs for ministerial leadership. The options were as follows: for pastoral charges with a called and inducted Presbyterian Church in Canada minister (full-time, part-time, two or more ministers), for pastoral charges seeking to call a minister (full-time, part-time, full-time being reduced to part-time for the first time), for pastoral charges not seeking to call a minister in the foreseeable future (stated supply minister, interim minister, non-Presbyterian Church in Canada minister, appointed lay missionary, combination of elder and lay leadership, weekly pulpit supply guests, congregation has been designated as a preaching point).
The second part of the survey was the same for all presbyteries. In the section on “Interim Moderator Appointments”, respondents were asked to indicate the contexts in which pastoral charges are appointed an interim moderator, who is permitted to serve, what honorarium is provided, and some statistics about the presbytery’s current interim moderator appointments. In the section on the “Nature and Impact of Long-term Pulpit Vacancies”, respondents were asked about the factors causing long-term vacancies, the impact this is having on ministers, congregations and the presbytery itself, and the ways the presbytery has been trying to handle the duties typically assigned to an interim moderator. In addition, respondents were invited to comment on what needs to happen to address the challenges facing the church at this time, and to offer any other remarks.
The Study Results
The first result to be noted is the strong response rate. The responding presbyteries numbered 33 of 45 (73%) and together provided information about 499 pastoral charges (68% of a total of 732). Presbyteries are to be thanked for their invaluable contribution to this study. The presbyteries appeared to appreciate the survey as well. Several expressed gratitude for being asked to provide input and appreciation for the discussions the survey prompted within the presbytery. The survey responses provide a snapshot view of the church’s pastoral charges, and it might be useful to examine this picture on its own terms, quite apart from the more focused interest on long-term pulpit vacancies.
The responses indicate that 67% of pastoral charges within the presbyteries that responded have a called and inducted Presbyterian Church in Canada minister (335 of 499), 12% are seeking to call (60 of 499) and 21% have pulpit vacancies and are not seeking to call (104 of 499). This percentage of “pulpit vacant and not seeking” is consistent with the data presented last year.
Of the pastoral charges with called and inducted Presbyterian Church in Canada ministers, the majority are full-time (281 of 335, or 84%), 10% are part-time (35 of 335), and 6% have more than one minister (19 of 335). Of the pastoral charges that are seeking to call a Presbyterian Church in Canada minister, the majority have full-time ministry positions (43 of 60, or 72%), while 18% are seeking to replace a part-time minister (11 of 60) and a further 10% will be seeking a part-time minister for the first time (6 of 60).
Of the 104 pastoral charges that have pulpit vacancies and are not seeking to call a minister, 24 have appointed stated supply ministers (23%), 13 have appointed interim ministers (12.5%), 13 have non-Presbyterian Church in Canada ministers (12.5%), 11 have lay ministers (10.5%), 11 have elders and other lay people leading worship (10.5%), 10 have weekly pulpit supply (10%) and 22 are considered a preaching point (21%).
With respect to geographic distribution of these pastoral charges with pulpit vacancies that are not seeking to call a minister, they are not spread evenly across the country. The presbytery responses indicate that the Synod of Saskatchewan has the highest proportion (53%, or 9 of 17), followed by the synods of Quebec and Eastern Ontario (34%, or 19 of 56), the Atlantic Provinces (32%, or 28 of 87), Manitoba and Northwest Ontario (28%, or 8 of 29), Alberta (21%, or 6 of 29) and British Columbia (21%, or 8 of 38), Southwestern Ontario (17%, or 13 of 78), and Central Northeastern Ontario and Bermuda (8%, or 13 of 163).
Interim Moderator Appointments
The second part of the survey provided a great deal of information about how the responding presbyteries are handling interim moderator appointments. Virtually all appoint an interim moderator when a pulpit is preached vacant. Most keep an interim moderator in place throughout the time when an appointed Presbyterian Church in Canada minister serves as stated supply, although a handful keep an interim moderator in place during a stated supply appointment only when search and selection procedures (for the new minister) are in progress. The same statement could be made for keeping an interim moderator in place during an interim ministry appointment. Other contexts for an interim moderator appointment included times: when a minister is on a leave of absence, when a lay minister/missionary is appointed or a nonPresbyterian Church in Canada minister is giving pulpit leadership, and when the session needs to discuss whether to request renewal of the stated supply appointment.
As to the pool of potential interim moderators, most presbyteries include ministers on their own appendix to the roll, as well as those on the constituent roll. Several are open to considering Presbyterian Church in Canada ministers on the roll (constituent or appendix) of a neighbouring presbytery or serving as synod regional staff. One presbytery admitted to permitting a retired minister from another denomination to serve as an interim moderator.
With respect to the practice of congregations providing an honorarium to their interim moderators, by far the majority of responding presbyteries indicated that they require this. There was some variety in how the amount of the honorarium is determined. Several presbyteries require a specified percentage of the previous minister’s stipend (exclusive of housing and utilities) or of the base stipend on the General Assembly’s schedule of minimum stipend and allowances (exclusive of years of service increments). Ten percent was quoted commonly, and some mentioned 5%, 7% and 7.5%. Several other presbyteries set a monthly figure; most ranged from $150–$300 per month, although one figure set at $50 per month is considerably lower. A number of presbyteries use a two-tiered approach, with a higher percentage (perhaps 10%) required when search and selection procedures are underway, and a lower percentage (perhaps 5%) when they are not. In a similar way, one presbytery requires $3,000 per year in the first instance, and $1,500 per year in the second. One presbytery requires congregations to provide their interim moderator with an honorarium and suggests 10% percent of the previous minister’s stipend (exclusive of housing and utilities), but gives the congregation discretion over setting the figure. Only one presbytery uses a variation of the approach advocated by the authors of Overture No. 1, 2014. In this case, the congregation with the appointed interim moderator pays the interim moderator’s congregation 5% of the basic minimum stipend; however, if the interim moderator is retired, these funds are given to the interim moderator; information submitted informally from this presbytery indicates that some of the actively serving ministers consider this arrangement unfair.
The number of interim moderator appointments currently in progress in the responding presbyteries is quite high. The respondents noted 146 interim moderator appointments that are served by 131 different ministers, of whom 101 are on the constituent roll and 30 are on the appendix to the roll. This means that 101 ministers – a full 30% of the called ministers covered by the survey responses – are serving two pastoral charges: their own pastoral charge where they serve either full-time or 50% or more part-time, and a second pastoral charge where they are appointed as interim moderator. Furthermore, since there are 15 more interim moderator appointments than ministers serving in them, there could be as many as 15 ministers on the constituent roll who are appointed as interim moderator in a third pastoral charge. The 30 ministers on the appendix to the roll are retired ministers, ministers without a pastoral charge of their own, or ministers serving in a pastoral charge at less than 50% part-time.
The Nature and Impact of Long-term Pulpit Vacancies
The responding presbyteries noted a number of factors causing some of their pastoral charges with a pulpit vacancy not to seek to call a minister. Almost all mentioned financial problems. Several others also mentioned small and declining congregational membership numbers, aging demographics within the congregation, and declining numbers of people in the community where the congregation is located. Some presbyteries commented that geographic location of the congregation was a factor. A congregation’s inability to form an alliance or two-point charge with another congregation was also noted, a situation that might arise when the congregation is unwilling to enter such a cooperative arrangement, when relationships in a multiple-point pastoral charge deteriorate and the congregations are disjoined, leaving a small congregation isolated, or when the distances between points are prohibitive. Several responses drew attention to attitudes in the congregation, such as being perhaps too content with ministry limited to weekly pulpit supply, believing that the congregation is moribund, choosing building maintenance over ministry, or having unresolved conflict.
Presbytery responses to the question of the impact of long-term pulpit vacancies on ministers, congregations and the presbytery itself revealed some serious concerns. The majority of presbyteries expressed concern for interim moderators who are serving in pastoral charges on their own. They commented that ministers may feel overwhelmed by the task at hand, struggling to find pulpit supply and deal with an increase in emergent pastoral care (hospital visits and funerals) and leadership within the session, while still caring for their own people and congregations. The presbyteries see their ministers bearing a heavier workload, sometimes spread over a larger geographic area, experiencing increased stress, in some cases dealing with resentment in their own families because of the extra time and energy demanded by the interim moderator appointment, and feeling worn out.
A few presbyteries drew attention to the congregations where the interim moderator is the called minister, noting that they may experience feelings of frustration or neglect. One presbytery reported that the representative elders pray that their minister is not chosen. Comments were made also about the congregations with the long-term pulpit vacancy, which may be experienced as isolating, decreasing the congregation’s sense of connectedness and affiliation with the presbytery and the denomination.
Finally, several presbyteries expressed concern for the well-being of the presbytery. Some respondents believe their presbytery is too small. These respondents observe a serious shortage of ministers for interim moderator appointments as well as for committee work. The work of the presbytery has increased but the number of people available to share this work – both clergy and lay – is limited. A small number of people end up trying to fill too many roles. It is draining and results in low energy or enthusiasm, and uncertainty about the future or the direction to take. Some respondents described their presbytery as frustrated by inertia. The presbytery does not engage fully in its role of oversight of congregations, and when it does attempt to give direction, often its overtures are angrily refused.
Other presbytery respondents described growing support in the presbytery for the idea of closing some pastoral charges while trying to hold onto others. Stewardship of property and funds is being questioned. Could the presbytery sell one building and use the proceeds to engage in new church development somewhere with a higher population density?
Presbyteries were asked what different approaches they were trying to handle the duties traditionally assigned to an interim moderator in pastoral charges with no plans to call a new minister. By far the most common response was that the presbytery had not tried any new approaches. Nevertheless, a number of approaches were described. Some presbyteries use retired ministers as extensively as possible. Various forms of clustering, amalgamating and realigning of pastoral charges are underway, sometimes with the help of different interim moderators appointed to the different congregations. When one synod had a regional staff person, that person’s duties included being interim moderator in several congregations concurrently, and a couple of presbyteries have been discussing the possibility of appointing a ‘presbytery minister’ to serve in this way. In one presbytery, when a retired Presbyterian Church in Canada minister appointed as stated supply has been serving for a number of years with annual renewals of the appointment, an interim moderator is appointed only for the brief time each year when the session discusses whether to request renewal of the appointment. One presbytery noted that it would prefer to return to its previous practice of appointing an interim moderator during a stated supply appointment only when a search and selection process for a new minister is required; it recently appointed interim moderators to all its pastoral charges with appointed stated supply ministers, believing this was strictly required under the Book of Forms. A couple of presbyteries have designated some congregations as preaching points, an action that recognizes that, in some situations, a session is no longer needed when the congregation’s activities are limited to Sunday worship (and perhaps not every week). Finally, one presbytery has assigned the role of interim moderator for congregations that have no plans to call a minister to the presbytery ministry committee. This allows the ruling elders on the committee to share with the ministers the tasks of arranging for coverage for pulpit ministry, including sacraments, pastoral needs, and moderating session meetings; it has the added benefit appreciated by the congregations of removing the requirement to provide an interim moderator honorarium.
In a final section of the survey, presbyteries were asked a more general question about what needs to happen if the church is to meet the challenges it is facing at this time. Their answers will be summarized here. Several respondents stated that the presbytery needs to take its role of oversight to a new level that will include recommendations that some congregations amalgamate or close. In this regard, the need was identified for a standard by which the viability of a congregation could be measured. Several presbyteries commented that some congregations simply need to amalgamate or close. The opinion was expressed that, for some congregations, it is too late. The comment was made that when congregations are holding on by their fingernails, it’s hard to make substantive progress. Respondents also pointed out that some church buildings are not adequate and yet there is a lack of people or finances to make the changes that would be needed. Certainly, there seems to be an awareness that the church has some difficult decisions ahead of it.
Some comments drew attention to the needs of presbyteries for resources to help train their ministers to be better interim moderators, given the kinds of leadership that interim moderators may be required to give as congregations with long-term pulpit vacancies discern the direction their ministry should take moving forward. The suggestion was also made that candidates for ministry would benefit from training about the role of an interim moderator while in seminary.
Some comments focused on the need of the presbytery to amalgamate with another presbytery, and the possibility of the presbytery meeting over long distances using new technologies. The need for education and enthusiasm about taking new directions in ministry was underscored, beginning at the level of the session, as well as effective communication of workable ideas and best practices. Some locations will require funding for and assistance with new church development, if this denomination is to have a lasting presence there. Finally, the church’s continual need for spiritual ministry and for ordained ministers who are effective spiritual leaders was emphasized. One respondent commented that the church needs to believe and to proclaim that God’s church will not fail, even if it looks different in the future.
Next Steps
The survey appears to have elicited discussion of some wide-ranging and weighty matters. While such discussion has intrinsic value and may serve to challenge the participants and stimulate creativity and innovation, it is necessary to focus on matters clearly within the scope of this report. What suggestions related to the church’s approaches to long-term pulpit vacancy will be most helpful at this time?
The strongest need appears to be to find ways to ease the strain presbyteries are experiencing due to a shortage of human resources. The first suggestion holds the potential to build the capacity of a presbytery for much more than its interactions with its congregations with long-standing vacant pulpits. Presbyteries are encouraged to foster local dialogue about the size and needs of their presbytery, and whether combining with another presbytery or some other form of realignment might be mutually helpful. Presbyteries need enough ministers, representative elders and congregations to do their work. Responses to this survey certainly indicate that not all presbyteries are convinced this is the case for them. The church has procedures for examining and reorganizing presbyteries, as well as provision for requesting a project be undertaken through overture to the General Assembly. This would not be a quick or easy fix, but it is an approach that could bring lasting benefits.
The second suggestion is to encourage presbyteries to try different approaches that reduce their need for ministers to serve as interim moderator. While anticipating that there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution and acknowledging that all ideas will not succeed in all presbyteries, nor even in any one presbytery all the time, nevertheless the following approaches might be helpful.
Presbyteries could begin the practice of not requiring an interim moderator to continue serving in “not seeking” congregations throughout the entire time that a Presbyterian Church in Canada minister is appointed as stated supply minister. Presbyteries would be advised to appoint an interim moderator at the beginning and end of the appointment of a stated supply minister, and to keep the interim moderator in place for a number of months until the presbytery is satisfied the pastoral relationship is established and functioning well. However, a presbytery might discern at times that an interim moderator is no longer needed, especially when stated supply appointments of the same minister are renewed several years in succession. Furthermore, presbyteries could experiment with assigning the duties of an interim moderator of “not seeking” congregations to the presbytery ministry committee, so that the ruling elders and ministers on the committee could share the tasks of arranging for pulpit, pastoral and session leadership. In addition, presbyteries could consider designating some “not seeking” congregations as preaching points – a practice, more common some years ago, in which it is deemed that the congregation no longer needs a session, at a time when Sunday worship (and perhaps not every week) is the sole activity of the congregation. These three approaches could reduce the number of interim moderators as reported in the survey by as much as 54%. Of 104 “not seeking” congregations, 24 have a stated supply minister (23%) and 32 have weekly pulpit supply (31%).
The pressure on ministers on the constituent roll of the presbytery would be alleviated if presbyteries made as extensive use as possible of their retired ministers when appointing interim moderators. Finally, presbyteries may wish to consider appointing one individual to be interim moderator in several pastoral charges concurrently – either a non-retired minister without charge or a retired minister.
The third suggestion returns to the subject of the overture – the question of congregations providing an honorarium to their interim moderator. The fact that some form of this practice is required in almost all presbyteries indicates it is widely regarded as useful. Presbyteries should be encouraged to continue this practice, choosing whatever method seems best to them for determining the amount of the honorarium. Certainly, the idea proposed by the overture that the congregation with the interim moderator should reimburse the interim moderator’s congregation appears to enjoy mixed support in the one presbytery where a variation of this approach is used. Moreover, it is unclear how the approach proposed in the overture would remedy the problem it identified – the interim moderator’s congregation being deprived of part of their minister’s time. How could the transfer of funds between the two congregations give this time back to the interim moderator’s congregation? A better way to address the valid concerns about the stresses that ministers, congregations and presbyteries experience as the church seeks to meet the needs of congregations that become long-term pulpit vacancies is to find ways to ease the human resource shortages of presbyteries, as noted above. For this reason, the following recommendation is presented.
Recommendation No. 25 (amended, p. 46)
That the prayer of Overture No. 1, 2014 re long-term vacancies and interim moderators be answered in terms of the preceding report