I'm not sure if this is the category that is best suited for this discussion, so if the administrators want to move it to another category, I won't object.

I believe there needs to be some succession planning with regards to the individuals that the members believe are qualified to take over ministry responsibilities when the generation that currently serves in this capacity retires or moves on.

Up until 2003, lead evangelists / pastors and their wives were selected FOR us by regional leaders above us in the corporate structure of the church.  In 2003, with the dismissal of many lead evangelists worldwide, a pool of ministers became available.  In Minneapolis, we decided to hire the couple that presently lead the church here after much discussion and prayer.  Despite my belief that we didn't need to hire someone right away, I firmly believe that the Saindon's have served our church well and it has been a good fit.

However, the church really doesn't have any "best practices" for hiring folks to serve as lead ministers.  I believe that some church boards are a bit more independent these days (though I could be wrong) and it is really their responsibility to establish appropriate requirements for someone serving as lead evangelist over a congregation.

Some of the more salient issues that these boards must consider:

* Previously, one needn't have had any formal schooling in Bible scholarship/counseling/ministry to be lead evangelist.  I think this practice should end.  Perhaps we need not reinvent the wheel, but I believe the members deserve SOME academic credentials related to ministry and Bible scholarship before being able to get on a church's payroll.

* How does the board evaluate the performance of the minister?  Prior to 2003, the general criteria was if the church's membership was growing numerically.  I imagine that this criteria is not the sole determinant of the minister's performance anymore (at least I HOPE it isn't).

* Remuneration.  Another touchy subject, I know, but given our propensity for hiring couples rather than just a minister, I believe the compensation levels ought to be radically changed.  Six-figure incomes for a couple that is in the ministry when there are members on welfare and other forms of public assistance seems extravagant.  Not that they ought to take a vow of poverty, but I just can't justify that level of compensation for a minister.