{"id":2866,"date":"2026-08-13T19:34:20","date_gmt":"2026-08-13T19:34:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.brethren.org\/ac\/?p=2866"},"modified":"2026-08-13T19:34:20","modified_gmt":"2026-08-13T19:34:20","slug":"2025-report-calling-denominational-leadership","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.brethren.org\/ac\/statements\/2025-report-calling-denominational-leadership\/","title":{"rendered":"2025 Report, Calling Denominational Leadership"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Report, Calling Denominational Leadership<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n
\n

Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.<\/em><\/p>\n\u20132 Peter 1:10-11<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Congruence with the 2001 Annual Conference Report on the \u201cReview of the Process for Calling Denominational Leadership\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

It should be noted that many of the findings of the 2023 Calling Denominational Leadership study committee were similar to those of the 2001 study committee called for a similar purpose. That committee concluded the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe issue of how to select leadership for congregations, districts and the denomination, has brought a variety of interest and opinions from many parts of the denomination. In the specific task assigned to this Study Committee by the 1998 Annual Conference, \u201d to review the process of calling persons to denominational leadership, including an evaluation of election and appointment methods,\u201d delegates desired to utilize a system that calls the best persons for leadership positions while being sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit. In addition, in keeping with our community-based heritage, others asked how might we maintain a significant level of participation by individual members of the church, including Annual Conference delegates. This committee determined that its responsibility and charge was to provide the requested information so that delegates could choose the most appropriate means for the church to call denominational leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whichever selection process emerges, the Study Committee has several recommendations. First, it is recommended that the delegates reaffirm age\/gender\/ethnic representation as defined by the \u201cCall to Accountability for Equality of Representation on Annual Conference Ballots,\u201d most recently evaluated at the 1999 Annual Conference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, it is recommended that the principles of the 1996 \u201cEthics in Ministry Relations\u201d paper also be applied to those who would be called to denominational leadership. Whether or not these persons have ministerial standing, it is felt that the standards of ethical behavior as described in this paper should apply to all denominational leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third, it is recommended that candidates for denominational offices not look at themselves as victims if they are not chosen. Instead, candidates and all members of the church at large need to be open to the way in which God leads the community. As difficult as it may be at times, it is better that egos be set aside for the good of the community of faith. There are times when what appears to be best for the individual may not be best for the community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fourth, it is recommended that congregations, districts, and Congregational Life Team members (serving as resource persons) redouble efforts to do quality leadership development. Persons need to be called out and prepared prior to being chosen for denominational leadership. Leadership experience in a community of faith and sensitivity to the guidance of the Spirit is extremely valuable to those called. Persons with such background can serve the church well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fifth, if delegates choose a process other than the current process or the modified process, then it is recommended that the Annual Conference officers in consultation with the Annual Conference Executive Director determine the timeline necessary for Annual Conference action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the process of calling denominational leadership is chosen by the delegates to Annual Conference, it is vital that the church continues to seek the guidance and direction of the Spirit in selecting those persons with gifts and abilities to lead. Members of the church must trust the Spirit, each other and the process selected as denominational leadership is called to serve God and the community of faith.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Work of the Study Committee<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The study committee on Calling Denominational Leadership began meeting in the Fall of 2023, working to review the Standing Committee Proposal and to work through the necessary steps for completing the task. The committee met approximately every two weeks between October 2023 and February 2024, thereafter about monthly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During its meetings the committee discussed approaches to answering the questions and concerns posed by the Standing Committee and strategized how best to collect information that would represent the whole of the denomination. It was recognized that a person\u2019s experiences with the calling and ballot process could be sensitive. During the deliberations, the question was raised as to whether the same issues the Standing Committee was having at the denominational level, were also being experienced at the district or other levels of the church.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The committee endeavored to consult and obtain input with the following groups and individuals:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  • Standing committee nominations subcommittee (present and past)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Young adults<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • District executives (CODE)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Recent past nominees<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Current individuals serving in AC-elected positions<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Organizations within the church that rely on volunteers and servant-leadership<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Former ballot candidates<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Those individuals nominated, but not on the ballot<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Mission and Ministry Board<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    • Agencies:
      • Eder Financial<\/li><\/ul>
        • On Earth Peace<\/li><\/ul>\n
            \n
          • Bethany Theological Seminary<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Service focused ministries, such as:
            • Brethren Disaster Ministries<\/li><\/ul>
              • Brethren Volunteer Service<\/li><\/ul>\n
                  \n
                • Brethren Camps<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                • Groups that assist in nominating or calling individuals, such as:
                  • Brethren Revival Fellowship<\/li><\/ul>
                    • Supportive Communities Network<\/li><\/ul>\n
                        \n
                      • Womaen\u2019s Caucus<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                      • Representatives from the Intercultural Ministries office<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                        While the committee did not receive responses from each group contacted, it worked to include as vast a representation as possible. As a note, during this process, the Standing Committee was in conversation with the Church of the Brethren Agencies regarding the nomination process and the 2024 Annual Conference accepted a Memorandum of Understanding with each agency regarding their election process, dissolving the need to include them in the committee\u2019s process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        Additionally, the committee developed survey instruments to collect information from a broader group of individuals, ultimately receiving feedback from several hundred Church of the Brethren members. The committee contacted multiple individuals, agencies and committees to obtain a broad array of input to the question, including the delegates at the 2024 Annual Conference. The committee was intentional about contacting representatives across the broad theological spectrum of the denomination, so as to provide generalizable outcomes and recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        For the most part, the committee focused narrowly on the Annual Conference leadership selection process, including the process for making nominations, the processes of nominating committee and standing committee for finalizing the Annual Conference Ballot, and the voting process at Annual Conference. The committee also solicited feedback regarding the broader theme of servant leadership in the church to help guide our study and understand the church body\u2019s aspirations for its calling of leaders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        Findings<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

                        Using surveys, interviews, and interactions across the spectrum of the denomination, the study committee sought feedback on the Church of the Brethren\u2019s leadership selection process and other issues related to serving in denominational leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        The committee concurs with the general sense of the nominating committee regarding the challenges the Church of the Brethren faces in calling church leaders. The committee received considerable feedback relaying concerns about a dwindling pool of individuals who are interested in serving in church leadership, fatigue among those who have been called to serve or have felt a call and been rejected, a lack of diversity in denominational leadership, and disillusionment, dissatisfaction, and confusion regarding the calling process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        There was an overall sentiment that much of the election process is reduced to familiarity within the overall church; whether that familiarity is by surname, by congregation or by district, the call goes to those with whom people can attest a connection. This sentiment moves beyond ballot and election processes, but also to other leadership, such as Annual Conference speakers and leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        While these challenges are considerable, the committee also received positive feedback about the untapped potential of individuals in the broader church body to serve, including those who have been overlooked for leadership because of their age or identity, because they possess nontraditional leadership skills and qualifications, or because they simply lack connections helpful to receive a call and make it onto the ballot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        More specifically, through the feedback received, the following themes emerged:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                          \n
                        • Church polity concerning the selection of leaders of Annual Conference<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                        • Diversity of church leadership<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                        • Qualifications of candidates for leadership<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                        • Burdens of serving in leadership<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                        • Negative experiences with the nominating and balloting process<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                        • The election process and structure of the ballot<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                          Polity<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                          The committee received a significant amount of feedback expressing frustration and confusion regarding elements of church polity concerning the leadership nomination and balloting process at Annual Conference. These issues included:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                            \n
                          • Requirements for a quota of nominees for each position. The committee learned from Nominating Committee that every position appearing on the Annual Conference ballot generally requires at least four nominees, so that Standing Committee can reduce that number down to two candidates appearing on the final ballot. Often, not enough qualified and eligible people are nominated and accept the nomination, requiring Nominating Committee to spend considerable time and effort reaching out to potential nominees to meet the quota. Not only is this a significant burden for Nominating Committee but also it results in the pool of potential leaders becoming limited to those known by the members of the committee. Moreover, the committee received feedback from several people who were hurt and confused after they received outreach from Nominating Committee to consider a call for leadership, accepted that call and took the time to submit biographical information, only to not even be accepted to appear on the ballot.

                            Thus, as polity currently stands, Nominating Committee is required to call people to leadership for the express purpose of having enough candidates to reject. To be sure, this requirement is meant to ensure that Standing Committee can exercise discernment over a full pool of candidates. But, in practice, it leads to considerable wasted time and unnecessary hurt feelings that serve as a stumbling block for calling leaders in future years.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                          • Eligibility. As a matter of polity, certain people are ineligible to serve in certain positions due to recent past service or because of potential conflicts of interest due to their employment in a church agency, or family relations with such a person. While preventing potential conflicts of interest in church leadership is obviously a goal of paramount importance, the disqualification rules also create significant difficulty in identifying leaders who have received a call and are eligible to serve, and the committee received some feedback that the disqualification rules might be too expansive. For instance, individuals are ineligible to serve on the Review and Evaluation Committee not only if they are staff members of any Church of the Brethren agency, but also if they are board members of any such agency.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
                              \n
                            • Self-Nomination. The committee was informed that it is polity that prevents individuals from self-nominating to open positions. This polity creates scenarios in which individuals who feel called are required to have someone nominate them. This can be confusing and frustrating for individuals with specific skills interested in serving, but who have not become familiar with the wider denomination.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
                                \n
                              • Election vs. slate. Numerous commenters suggested that, given the challenges in identifying church leaders, it may be worthwhile to move from an election ballot with two candidates to a slate with one candidate for each position chosen by Standing Committee to be affirmed at Annual Conference. The committee also received feedback that such a reform would lead to a potential situation where Standing Committee solely selects the leadership of the church without input from the wider church body. It is noted that many congregations and Districts have already moved to a similar process.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                                Diversity<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                                The Committee solicited and received feedback on diversity in the broadest sense, including ethnicity, age, gender, theological perspective, etc. Considerable feedback was provided agreeing that the denomination struggles to call and embrace diverse leaders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                  \n
                                • With respect to racial and ethnic diversity, the committee received feedback that a small pool of people of color repeatedly receive calls to serve in various leadership positions, which both results in fatigue for those few people of color who are frequently called upon to serve, and means that leadership opportunities are seldom made available for other potentially interested people who could lend new perspectives and expand the diversity of church leadership overall.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
                                    \n
                                  • With respect to women in leadership, the committee received positive feedback about the strides the church has made with regard to calling women to serve, though many commenters reported lingering hurt feelings and disillusionment resulting from nominations from the floor that they perceived to be calculated to prevent women from obtaining leadership positions. The committee also received feedback relaying ongoing concerns that women are overlooked for leadership, must meet higher standards of qualifications to be seen as potential leaders, and are pigeonholed into certain leadership positions based on gender stereotypes.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
                                      \n
                                    • With respect to youth and young adults, the committee received feedback that young people feel obstacles to serving in leadership stemming from a lack of traditional leadership experiences and qualifications, and a general sense that they are overlooked in the calling process at each stage, from nominations, to Standing Committee\u2019s refinement of the ballot, to ballot voting, and even to being taken seriously as leaders when elected. Some commenters suggested creating seats on denominational boards reserved for youth and young adult leaders.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
                                        \n
                                      • With respect to LGBTQ+ individuals, the committee received feedback from several individuals reporting experiences of being affirmatively discouraged from serving in church leadership, or rejected for leadership, because of their identity. Many LGBTQ+ members report experiencing hostility related to their sexual orientation or gender identity, which can result in being overlooked as potential leaders, feeling hesitation to accept a call if received, and can become a barrier to making it onto the final ballot or being elected. Even as church numbers decline and the leadership pool dwindles, talented LGBTQ+ individuals who have a desire to serve are often excluded from those opportunities.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n