Pastor Discretionary Account question

[BryanW92]

For the UM clergy out there:

Do you have a discretionary account that you can use to help people discretely? If you do, do you control the money or do you write checks and pass them off to a committee of laity to sign (and therefore, approve)?

 

[circuitrider]

For the UM clergy out there:

Do you have a discretionary account that you can use to help people discretely? If you do, do you control the money or do you write checks and pass them off to a committee of laity to sign (and therefore, approve)?

Bryan, our church has a "Human Development Fund." It is administered by our Administrative Secretary. I can recommend people to her but I cannot access the funds and I have no desire to have access to the funds.

I've never been in a church where a whole committee signed checks. Usually such a fund is under the control for checks of one or two people. If someone needs help its pretty tough to track down a whole committee to get a check for something.

 

[BryanW92]

Bryan, our church has a "Human Development Fund." It is administered by our Administrative Secretary. I can recommend people to her but I cannot access the funds and I have no desire to have access to the funds.

I've never been in a church where a whole committee signed checks. Usually such a fund is under the control for checks of one or two people. If someone needs help its pretty tough to track down a whole committee to get a check for something.

In the interests of confidentiality, we always gave our pastor control of the funds in a very limited account and we put most of the funds into grocery store, walmart, and gas gift cards so we could help people fast and easy. First he stopped the gift cards and made us go to checks. Now, he doesn't want access anymore to the checks for the same reason you don't. I can appreciate that but handing it over to the church secretary just makes her as responsible as he is trying to avoid being. And we pay him to do more than just preach.

So he has suggested a two signature system on the checks with neither signature being him. We discussed the lag time that this will create so now he wants four people with signatory authority on that account.

It's a real mess. We're going to wind up with a 24-48 hr lag time just to help someone buy a bag of groceries...if they can even cash a check.

 

[circuitrider]

The system we have was not set up by me. But the reason that we do it the way we do it is that the secretary keeps detailed records of who is helped and is in the office more than I am.

As you say the pastor is responsible for a lot more than preaching. My secretary is in the office the same schedule every week where my schedule varies from emergencies, hospital calls, visits, and meetings. The church secretary is much easier to find at certain hours for those dropping by the church with a need than I am. The secretary is under my direct supervision. As the pastor of a church with approximately 1,000 members and a several people on staff I don't administer every program of the church nor should I if I want the work to get done. I'm in charge of seeing it gets done, not necessarily doing it myself. Sometimes that means I do it, sometimes my staff does it, and sometimes lay people are better equipped to do the work. Pastors that do it all are not training the laity to do ministry and aren't doing their job.

Different pastors have different feelings how benevolence should be done. There isn't just one right way to do it. But if you've already turned his opinion about how to do benevolence into "he doesn't want to do his job" then I think you've misunderstood the role of the pastor.

When someone brings the pay check into a discussion of what the pastor does I get very concerned. The pastor of a UMC church is not an hired employee the church that you get to boss around because you pay him. Pay doesn't have anything to do with his role or your authority over his role.

Her or his responsibilities are outlined by the Discipline of the Church and not just whatever the local church want the pastor to do. We are pastors and not hirelings.

 

[BryanW92]

You're probably right. It isn't my place to question him.

 

[circuitrider]

You're probably right. It isn't my place to question him.

And I probably came on too strong. It isn't wrong to question. Where I was concerned is that doing things a certain way becomes part of the job description.

 

[Maid Marie]

The system we have was not set up by me. But the reason that we do it the way we do it is that the secretary keeps detailed records of who is helped and is in the office more than I am.

As you say the pastor is responsible for a lot more than preaching. My secretary is in the office the same schedule every week where my schedule varies from emergencies, hospital calls, visits, and meetings. The church secretary is much easier to find at certain hours for those dropping by the church with a need than I am. The secretary is under my direct supervision. As the pastor of a church with approximately 1,000 members and a several people on staff I don't administer every program of the church nor should I if I want the work to get done. I'm in charge of seeing it gets done, not necessarily doing it myself. Sometimes that means I do it, sometimes my staff does it, and sometimes lay people are better equipped to do the work. Pastors that do it all are not training the laity to do ministry and aren't doing their job.

Different pastors have different feelings how benevolence should be done. There isn't just one right way to do it. But if you've already turned his opinion about how to do benevolence into "he doesn't want to do his job" then I think you've misunderstood the role of the pastor.

When someone brings the pay check into a discussion of what the pastor does I get very concerned. The pastor of a UMC church is not an hired employee the church that you get to boss around because you pay him. Pay doesn't have anything to do with his role or your authority over his role.

Her or his responsibilities are outlined by the Discipline of the Church and not just whatever the local church want the pastor to do. We are pastors and not hirelings.

For my pastoral internship last year, this was my job. I was the Compassionate Ministries Pastor and directly in charge of the Helping Hands Account. This wasn't the lead pastor's job because that is what others more gifted than him in the area of compassion could do. Plus, it prevented any hint of financial impropriety. For me, I was at the church on certain days and was in charge of intake. But the board decided that the treasurer would write the checks. This didn't always work well, especially if the treasurer didn't feel like writing checks when needed or if he didn't like the person [bad scene]. When I finished and gave up that job, they decided that the treasurer's spouse would do intake and they could work on it when they wanted to. That doesn't sound like a safer way to do things but it was out of my hands at that point.

Our main requests were for rent. Otherwise I'd say keeping gas, food and walmart gift cards on hand would be a good idea.

 

[BryanW92]

And I probably came on too strong. It isn't wrong to question. Where I was concerned is that doing things a certain way becomes part of the job description.

Yeah. Keeping things out of the job description seems to be a priority.

 

[BryanW92]

For my pastoral internship last year, this was my job. I was the Compassionate Ministries Pastor and directly in charge of the Helping Hands Account. This wasn't the lead pastor's job because that is what others more gifted than him in the area of compassion could do. Plus, it prevented any hint of financial impropriety. For me, I was at the church on certain days and was in charge of intake. But the board decided that the treasurer would write the checks. This didn't always work well, especially if the treasurer didn't feel like writing checks when needed or if he didn't like the person [bad scene]. When I finished and gave up that job, they decided that the treasurer's spouse would do intake and they could work on it when they wanted to. That doesn't sound like a safer way to do things but it was out of my hands at that point.

Our main requests were for rent. Otherwise I'd say keeping gas, food and walmart gift cards on hand would be a good idea.

I think that the fear of an appearance of financial impropriety is a legitimate concern. Just a sign of the times we live in. Every thing like this makes me wonder if we should scrap all the bloated religious organizations that call themselves "church".

 

[Maid Marie]

Every thing like this makes me wonder if we should scrap all the bloated religious organizations that call themselves "church".

Well, I wouldn't go that far. It is by being a church that we can pool our resources to help others. I am in a small, poor church plant right now. We have zero funds to help others much at all. If I was trying to do this on my own I'd have even less.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Over the years I have experienced this issue dealt with (and sometimes avoided) by churches in very different ways.

Presently, we have a committee with responsibility for "Caring Ministry" in our church. The chairperson does not have authority to write checks, but does have a great deal of discretion with her budget to revise it to meet emergent needs, and to do so on her own authority. The rest of the committee are not so much decision makers as assistants to her in getting the needed help those it has been directed. Her budget is set and reviewed by the Administrative Council to whom she is accountable. If something comes up that she feels needs to be addressed, she will usually call me for feedback, and then go and do what she wants. (Primarily because she is more generous than I might be inclined to be.) Checks are written by the church secretary who is also our bookkeeper, and then must be signed by one of two people who are authorized to sign checks on the church's behalf. From beginning to end, we can usually respond in 24 hours.

At my last church we had an Outreach Committee that established a set of parameters for us who were in the church office. As Circuit Rider described above, this meant that my secretary dealt with more people than I did. Even if I was there, she did most of the work as she is the one who kept the records on who we had helped in the past. Our church limited help to once every 6 months. On occasion, when I had special knowledge, I could and would override that guideline to provide additional help. Our primary response was to issue a letter that people could take to businesses we had accounts with that allowed them to shop for groceries or other necessary items and bill us. The letter would indicate a maximum amount. The people could spend more, but if they did so they were responsible for anything over the figure stated in the letter.

The church before that had nothing in place when I arrived there. We set up a group of three persons within the church that met to discuss needs. I and two lay persons made up the group. We had a set of guidelines we produced to guide our discussion, but we had complete autonomy to respond in pretty much any way we saw fit. There was a special fund that the church established that people gave to and we utilized it to meet needs. If it was running low we made a general announcement and it was quickly resupplied. Once we reached consensus on any response, we simply contacted our treasurer who could cut us a check that day.

The only time we have ever dealt with cash was at a church where I was the associate and each Church Council meeting an offering was collected of those in attendance that was put into the pastor's discretionary fund. But, as I was the associate, I was never part of the disbursing team.

I was never any place that used gift cards as a means to minister to the poor in the community as an ongoing basis. I've seen these bought and given as gifts to people at specific times, but not kept on hand. I think it is actually a good idea with one enormous concern that might override the positive. Once purchased and on hand, they are as good as cash. Keeping even a few of these on hands is more than most churches would be comfortable having in a petty cash fund. There may also be some loss of accountability, though this need not be so. All of this is for a church to decide as part of the church's overall ministry, and then set in motion through whatever committee will oversee it, be it the PPRC, the Outreach/Missions Committee or some other group the church designates for that purpose. Your pastor may or may not be a part of that process. There are good argument both to include an exclude him/her. Those views, personal preferences, and the overall missional goals of the church need to be discussed to reach some conclusion as to what you corporately want to do, will do, and how you will go about doing it.

 

[BryanW92]

There's a lot of things to consider on setting these policies. Too much for an engineer! We don't think about all the intricacies of dealing with people!

After some prayerful consideration, I'm going to go with whatever the pastor wants on everything. He's the pro and I'm not going to second-guess him. I have one more year as council chairman and I'm just going to type up the monthly meeting agenda for that year and run the meeting without giving any more personal input. After that, my days of lay leadership are over.

 

[Maid Marie]

There's a lot of things to consider on setting these policies. Too much for an engineer! We don't think about all the intricacies of dealing with people!

After some prayerful consideration, I'm going to go with whatever the pastor wants on everything. He's the pro and I'm not going to second-guess him. I have one more year as council chairman and I'm just going to type up the monthly meeting agenda for that year and run the meeting without giving any more personal input. After that, my days of lay leadership are over.

As one who had to deal with all sorts of personalities in my internship, I find this so refreshing. Too bad you weren't at my church last year

 

[BryanW92]

As one who had to deal with all sorts of personalities in my internship, I find this so refreshing. Too bad you weren't at my church last year

LOL. I said that I was going to agree with him. That doesn't mean that I am going to do the work. I'm just running out the clock.

 

[circuitrider]

I think that the fear of an appearance of financial impropriety is a legitimate concern. Just a sign of the times we live in. Every thing like this makes me wonder if we should scrap all the bloated religious organizations that call themselves "church".

Christian ethics isn't a problem to be scrapped. There has been financial impropriety by church leaders at all levels in all different types of churches. Pastors who are well trained protect themselves and their church from such improprieties by creating systems of accountability.

I believe strongly in the connectional church like the UMC because, as a former congregationalist (Baptist), I can see what happens when local churches and individual pastors have no checks and balances on their behavior. Checks and balance are a good thing. Methodists call it "discipline" and discipline is something sorely lacking from the lives of many christians.

One of the reasons I came on as strong as I did about the leadership role of the pastor is that church in traditions that hire their own pastor have a real tendency to treat pastors as if they are just another employee to be ordered around.

So really that pastor can't be the pastor because she/he can't be a leader of the church if the laypeople give him/her all the orders and don't allow the pastor to make any decisions or do any real leading. You are just basically a payed mouth piece for the leadership of that local church. That isn't pastoral leadership. That's call being a gopher.

Pastors are appointed to be leaders. You can't be a leader if you aren't allowed to lead. That leadership needs to be collaborative. The pastor needs to be a team leader. But churches that don't allow their pastors to lead basically keep their pastor from being effective. If the local church wants to call all the shots they don't need a pastor.

By the way, this is why some small churches stay small. They so tightly control their own church and the leadership that no one new, including the pastor, can rest control out of their hands long enough to change anything. Then after three or four years of not being able to make any real changes the pastor gets fed up and tells the DS he wants a move and you start all over again. Then people say, "Gee I wonder why we never keep a pastor very long?" Or, conversely, the intransigent leadership ask the DS to move the preacher because they don't like that he is making changes. Either way, every three or four years a new doomed pastor walks into the same church with the same results.

 

[GraceSeeker]

There's a lot of things to consider on setting these policies. Too much for an engineer! We don't think about all the intricacies of dealing with people!

After some prayerful consideration, I'm going to go with whatever the pastor wants on everything. He's the pro and I'm not going to second-guess him. I have one more year as council chairman and I'm just going to type up the monthly meeting agenda for that year and run the meeting without giving any more personal input. After that, my days of lay leadership are over.

As one who had to deal with all sorts of personalities in my internship, I find this so refreshing. Too bad you weren't at my church last year

Not me. What I find refreshing is a layperson who actually asks questions and provides input. I find that people do second-guess the pastor, quite often in fact, they just usually don't do it in an open committee meeting where doing so can be constructive. How nice to have someone actually bring up their concerns so that they can be talked out.

I learned early in my career -- and I actually learned it from a bunch of high school kids -- that there is wisdom in the group. Any person, no matter how intelligent and well trained (and sadly, we pastors are least trained in what is asked of us most -- church administration) can err. The pastor may be a dictator in some denominations, but not in the United Methodist Church. I do trust the Holy Spirit to speak to and guide me. But my experience has been that he does so less directly and more often through the influence of a room filled with people who are also seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I think this is why we see that in the UMC we believe in conferencing, and not just when it comes to Annual Conference and General Conference either. Our whole structure is built around use of this process at every level of church government.

Will there be differences of opinions between one another when we are led this way? You bet. And, as our General Conference history shows, sometimes we even end up at loggerheads. But on the whole, and especially in the local church, I believe it is the best way for us to end up following the leading of the Holy Spirit. But, such leading can only be present when everyone participates; when everyone who participates is engaged in the process; and when everyone who is engaged in the process is willing to give up their own person agenda to seek the collective wisdom of the church. That doesn't mean giving up one's own opinion in complete deference to another. It simply means listening to and hearing from all --because in a church I suspect there are not just one point of view or two opposing sides, but mutliple conflicting, complimentary, and confused points of views. And in hearing we listen for what other truths than my own are out there that need to be taken into account? What do I know or perceived that others may not that needs to be added to the mix in our conversation in order to discern the best way forward? What do others know and perceive that I may not have considered, or understood well the reasons that they were important to them? Holy conferencing is about a lot more than saying, "Well, I think ______________." Holy conferencing is a conversation between teammates trying to figure out how to move the work forward and what process will give the team the best chance to accomplish that goal.

And for that to happen, we need everyone give it their all on every play.

 

[BryanW92]

Christian ethics isn't a problem to be scrapped.

I didn't say that Christian ethics are a problem to the scrapped! It's ridiculous to even hint that I said that.

I'm talking about leadership in the local church. Our BoD seems to be designed around a model where there is a local church that needs to run autonomously in between circuit rider visits, so we have a Church Council, Trustees, SPRC, and Committee on Finance that are all mandated by the Discipline.

This represents a lot of manpower being expended each month to do the work of the church with people who have day jobs performing what is a second or third job without pay. The chairpeople of each committee work many, many hours each week on church business.

You say that a pastor who is led by the congregation is only a gopher. That's probably true. But, the people who work as lay leadership deserve some consideration too. Running a church might not be our vocation, but it was important enough to us that we accepted the job. And if I was to suddenly just quit, people would want to know why and that could undermine the pastor's ministry. So, until I'm ready to quit and leave my church, I'm trapped in a job where I get little respect or support from the guy who is supposed to be my spiritual leader and, according to the Guidelines, my partner in ministry.

The only reason why I brought it up here is because this isn't a subject I can discuss with anyone in the congregation because people ask me questions about things we do (or don't do) already and I always publicly support the pastor.

 

[GraceSeeker]

The only reason why I brought it up here is because this isn't a subject I can discuss with anyone in the congregation because people ask me questions about things we do (or don't do) already and I always publicly support the pastor.

And I am glad you do. I would hope that this is one of the things that we can do for one another as a part of the larger Church -- be a resource and a sounding board for the difficult aspects of what it means to be in ministry. That's all of us, lay and clergy alike.

I understand you have one more year serving as chair of your Church Council. Who sets the agenda for that meeting? Is it you? The pastor? The two of you together? And who actually runs the meeting? Do you do it, or does the pastor assume de facto leadership of the agenda?

Is it a formula agenda, the same every month? Or does it adapt to what is going on in your church at present?

To what degree does the agenda encourage people to discuss things, or is it for supervising the work of the various committees of the church?

Are the discussions that do take place more focused on the nuts and bolts of an event or some other situation, or are they more focused on how the issues under discussion are related to the overall mission and purpose of your church?

Do you have any sort of training event for your church's lay leadership?

 

[Maid Marie]

LOL. I said that I was going to agree with him. That doesn't mean that I am going to do the work.

Still more than what I would have gotten in my internship!

Not me. What I find refreshing is a layperson who actually asks questions and provides input.

If we could have had only that, and in a non-second guessing manner, that would have been nice. What I am referring to is a constant barrage of second guessing...which is why I like Bryan's attitude. At some point, one has to be able to trust the pastor and move along with that pastor.

One of the reasons I came on as strong as I did about the leadership role of the pastor is that church in traditions that hire their own pastor have a real tendency to treat pastors as if they are just another employee to be ordered around.

So really that pastor can't be the pastor because she/he can't be a leader of the church if the laypeople give him/her all the orders and don't allow the pastor to make any decisions or do any real leading. You are just basically a payed mouth piece for the leadership of that local church. That isn't pastoral leadership. That's call being a gopher.

Pastors are appointed to be leaders. You can't be a leader if you aren't allowed to lead. That leadership needs to be collaborative. The pastor needs to be a team leader. But churches that don't allow their pastors to lead basically keep their pastor from being effective. If the local church wants to call all the shots they don't need a pastor.

By the way, this is why some small churches stay small. They so tightly control their own church and the leadership that no one new, including the pastor, can rest control out of their hands long enough to change anything. Then after three or four years of not being able to make any real changes the pastor gets fed up and tells the DS he wants a move and you start all over again. Then people say, "Gee I wonder why we never keep a pastor very long?" Or, conversely, the intransigent leadership ask the DS to move the preacher because they don't like that he is making changes. Either way, every three or four years a new doomed pastor walks into the same church with the same results.

you've described my former church. The CotN is like the UMC with it connectional arrangement but each church hires its own pastor. Sometimes that works well and sometimes it doesn't. Your last paragraph describes my former church. It will remain that way until something major changes that grip.

Sad, sad, sad...

 

[BryanW92]

And I am glad you do. I would hope that this is one of the things that we can do for one another as a part of the larger Church -- be a resource and a sounding board for the difficult aspects of what it means to be in ministry. That's all of us, lay and clergy alike.

I understand you have one more year serving as chair of your Church Council. Who sets the agenda for that meeting? Is it you? The pastor? The two of you together? And who actually runs the meeting? Do you do it, or does the pastor assume de facto leadership of the agenda?

Is it a formula agenda, the same every month? Or does it adapt to what is going on in your church at present?

To what degree does the agenda encourage people to discuss things, or is it for supervising the work of the various committees of the church?

Are the discussions that do take place more focused on the nuts and bolts of an event or some other situation, or are they more focused on how the issues under discussion are related to the overall mission and purpose of your church?

Do you have any sort of training event for your church's lay leadership?

I set the agenda and run the meeting. The week before, I always ask the pastor and lay leader if they want to cover anything special or rearrange the order to set a certain priority. I always put the ministry items (nurture, outreach, witness) before the resources and standing committee reports so we don't spend all of our time on business.

I stick to that basic order every month for consistency, but add in whatever is going on this month. I always start the meeting with a prayer, scripture reading, and homily that is relevant to something that is going on in the church that month.

I give the pastor and lay leader their own agenda item and ask them if they want it at the beginning or end of the meeting (or both).

We encourage discussion at the CC up to a point. For the routine items, I try to keep the reports short with two questions: "How did you support the mission?" and "What do you need to support the mission?" They can say whatever they want, but I try to keep them focused on those.

For the non-routine items or the things that need a council decision, we spend as much time as necessary. If it becomes too contentious, we may table it or create an ad hoc committee to deal with the details.

My predecessor was all about the nuts and bolts of the "business", so my primary focus in everything we do is ministry first, business second.

We've had some training events. In fact, we had a pretty good one last spring.