ANNUAL REVIEW
Most of the “terms of call” for Presbyterian ministers, I do not know how it goes in
other denominations, contains wording that suggest that there should be an annual review of the performance of the minister.

It is an idea that has great potential. It is an aspect of employment that many others in lots of other fields of work experience. Teachers are “observed” by other teachers and principals. Sales people have annual reviews. Other corporations have procedures that bring people in for an annual review of how their work has been. There are precise standards for these evaluations in some places. In other places it is much more subjective and difficult to evaluate the quality of the work being done.

I think that the profession of ministry is a very difficult profession to evaluate. By what standard do you judge the work of the minister? Is your model of how the minister ought to perform taken from the television preachers you have seen? Is the model by which one judges the minister one of the tall steeple preachers in the area? Maybe the committee is made up of people who want the minister to focus of the works like Mother Teresa or the Rev. Jesse Jackson, be a social activist? Maybe there are some who ask, “What would Jesus do?”

What are the bullet points that the committee needs to consider? George Buttrick, an outstanding minister in New York City in the 40’s and 50”s said that there are two things a minister ought to focus on: Calling on members and visitors, and Preaching. But even those must be dissected. Calling - how often? One a month on all members? One a quarter? Maybe all members once a year and when crisis comes? And there are deeper questions. What should happen in those calls? Should there be an agenda? I once heard of a minister who went with questions: Do you all prayer together every night? How is your habit of scripture reading? Do you find your place of work being a place where you feel comfortable sharing grace with others? How can the church help your spiritual life to grow? Other ministers just make it a social call unless the member has a question. Hospital and nursing home visits? How often? Every day?

Preaching - now there is a real sticky wicket. How do you evaluate the quality of the preaching? Is the work of preaching to comfort or challenge? Is the job to give answers or raise questions. Dogmatic or “Faith in search of understanding?” Does the preacher speak the politics of the kingdom of God or the politics of the USA? Is the preacher enable the members to leave satisfied or to leave a bit agitated? Is preaching a Bible study experience where most of the time is spent in telling the Bible story or is it to relate the Bible to contemporary society? How long should that sermon be? Does the preacher keep to the time limits? Does he read from a text or “preach from the heart?”

From my forty years of ministry, I have had a number of “annual reviews”. Some with just one member of the session. Some with a committee. Some with a job description given in January and used in December to see how it was accomplished. From those forty years, I do not think I had very many reviews that I thought were very helpful. Most of the time I thought they were too kind or indifferent. There was a “proforma” feeling about them. Let’s get this over.
How do you think a minister ought to be evaluated?