Report of Pastoral Distribution of the Holston Annual Conference Prepared by Rev. Terry Goodman
In preparing the data for the Equalization Formula, I realized I could use the categories created to take a snapshot of the Holston Annual Conference. The data contained herein is from the 2019 Appointment Book listings. My intent was to compare the various categories of pastor and see their relative size to each other in the annual conference. Let me begin with some definitions that will be reflected on the various charts that you will be viewing. Broad categories currently serving:
Guaranteed Appointment o Includes: Full Elder(FE), Full Deacon(FD), Provisional Elder(PE), Provisional Deacon(PD), Associate Members(AM) Not Guaranteed Appointment o Includes: Full Time Local Pastor(FL), Part Time Local Pastor(PL), Supply Pastor(SP), Certified Lay Minister(LM), Other Denomination (Methodist) (OE), Other Fellowship (OF), Retired Local Pastor (RL-serving)
Persons retired:
Retired Elders (RE), Retired Deacon (RD),Retired Local Pastor (RL-not serving), Retired Associate (RA)
Let’s begin with a comparison of Guaranteed vs Not-Guaranteed Appointment:
Pastoral Distribution
304 45% 366 55% Guaranteed Appointment
Not Guaranteed Appointment
This chart indicates that as an annual conference, 55% (366) of our serving pastors are those pastors that have a guaranteed appointment. Likewise 45% (304) are persons that are serving with no guaranteed appointment.
Let’s now further refine those numbers and consider what it would look like if we were to remove those persons that are in extension ministries, appointments beyond the local church, and those on one form of leave or another from the Guaranteed Appointment group
Pastoral Distribution
259 39%
304 45%
107 16% Guaranteed Appointment
Guaranteed Appointment-Other
Not Guaranteed Appointment
This chart now shows us, of the total pastors serving within our annual conference, 45% of those pastors fall under the Not Guaranteed Appointment category and 39% fall under the category of Guaranteed Appointment (currently serving a church). There is a new category of 107 persons (16%) that have Guaranteed Appointment, but are not serving in a local church.
Let me further refine the data with the following chart that will indicate out of the Guaranteed Appointment (serving), the total number of Provisional members.
Pastoral Distribution
227 34%
304 45%
107 16%
32 5%
Guaranteed Appointment
Guarunteed Appointment-Provisional
Guaranteed Appointment-Other
Not Guaranteed Appointment
Let’s back out to a wider view and now include Retired pastors. Please note, the Guaranteed vs NonGuaranteed is not the most elegant of classifications, but holds in line with previous definitions.
Pastoral Distribution
58 6% 366 34%
342 32%
304 28%
Guaranteed Appointment
Not Guaranteed Appointment
Retired-Guarunteed
Retired-Non Guarunteed
The thing to note from this chart is 32% of our Retired-Guaranteed is almost equal to the 34% Guaranteed (currently serving). You will also note there is a very small percentage (6%) of Retired-Nonguaranteed (which equates to Retired Local Pastor’s –Not serving). Overall, 38% of our pastors fall within the Retired categories when compared to all those currently serving.
Implications for the Board of Ordained Ministry: 1. The BOM needs to be aware of the division of responsibilities. Currently, the DCOM’s are responsible for vetting (reviewing documents, interviews) all persons until they reach the Provisional Stage. At that point the BOM takes over and vets/follows persons until they become Full Connection members of the Annual Conference. Once this level of relationship is attained, the Conference Secretary becomes responsible for maintaining records and, ultimately, District Superintendents and the Bishop then provide oversight. This means the DCOM’s are responsible for vetting, 45% (304) of the currently serving pastors in our annual conference. The Board of Ordained ministry is responsible for vetting 32 Provisionals (5%) of the currently serving ministers of the annual conference. This suggests that the board must begin to focus time and attention on providing the materials, guidance, and training for the DCOM’s to allow them to properly do the job for which they have been tasked. One step forward in this process would be the adoption of the DCOM Handbook which would standardize the process by which DCOM’s do their job. 2. With such large numbers of Non-Guaranteed Appointment pastors, it becomes important for us to ensure proper training is being undertaken by these pastors. We need to ask: “Are they progressing in COS?” This should become a priority question for the DCOM’s and the pastor’s who are supposed to be engaged with COS. The pastors also need to understand that if they do not progress, they will not be appointed. However, it will take a stance from the BOM and the Appointive Cabinet to make this reality sink in. We must enforce this rule in all the districts of the annual conference. 3. If the BOM wants to maintain leadership from Full Connection members and Associate members within our annual conference, then we need to undertake a rigorous recruitment process. This year, we have 5 persons applying to be in the incoming Provisional Class. We had 18 persons in the Local Pastor Licensing School. If we continue at this rate, then we will continue to have more Non-Guaranteed Appointments than we do Guaranteed Appointments. The BOM needs to decide the direction it wants to take and then pursue initiatives that will bolster that aim. 4. There are implications for our Eighty Year Assessment(EYA)—not sure what all of the implications might be, but some might be: a. If we cannot get local pastors to progress through COS, how successful will we be at getting them to engage in the EYA process? b. In a similar vein, since we have such a large number of Non-Guaranteed Appointments, what is the incentive for persons in this role to engage in the EYA process? c. At what level will the monitoring of the EYA take place? Will those with guaranteed appointment be monitored by the Director of Clergy Services? Will those with nonguaranteed appointment be monitored by the DCOM, to which they already relate? If so, then added training will need to be provided to the DCOM’s along with proper tracking methods—will we use paper or online tracking methods?
5. Will there be implications for the Appointive Process if the BOM begins enforcing the COS progression requirements? Will there be implications to the BOM if the Appointive Cabinet begins saying to smaller churches you must merge and create a larger charge so that an adequate compensation package can be created? Would this mean we need more Guaranteed Appointment persons?