I feel that in one large way our Bible schools are failing the ministers they are training. They are not preparing our up and coming ministers in the realities of church transformation. There is a huge shift in the approach to ministry that has been occurring over the last 10 years or so. Our young ministers are as passionate about God as any other generation, they are well-grounded in the faith an in our doctrines, and they possess skills and intelligence that are on a par with any generation ever produced. They are passionate about social justice, life change, worship and discipleship, but in a way that differs significantly from the previous generation. I truly believe that the changes in perspective from this generation are more significant that any previous generational shift. These ministers are truly effective, technologically savvy, and relational. The problem is that the churches they are inheiriting haven't seen this new way. Many of them have had wonderful long-time pastors who served their congregations for decades. These churches are still doing things the way they did them decades ago. Then the long-term pastor retires or dies and it is time to get someone new.These churches, with a core group of older people who have belonged to the church for decades realize that they need an infusion of young people and think that bringing in a young pastor will do it.
Where the breakdown occurs is in the differing of expectations. The people of the church are good people who love God and the church. They don't know any other way, and aren't especially interested in learning any new ways. The young pastor knows only the new ways and isn't especially interested in learning any old ways.
Of course, no one admits to any of this in the selection process. The church falls in love with the new pastor with his pretty wife and kids. They see an infusion of energy in their midst that they can enjoy. They just know that this young family can round up some more good solid young families and their church will be happy again. They can do some painting and fixing up of the nursery, and they will be ready to go and grow just the way they did when they were the young families. After all, it worked then, it should work now. They tell the new pastor that they know some things have to change, and he should feel free to do whatever it takes to get the church growing again.
The young pastor takes the reins and his mandate for change and goes to work. The hymnals disappear and new choruses are sung. Guitars and drums show up on the platform. There is talk of a projector and screens replacing the song books. Maybe the people grit their teeth and endure that because, after all, that's what the young people supposedly want. But things get tense when the young people the new pastor brings in start showing up. They are disrespectful. They wear shorts and flip-flops to church. They have tattoos. They are of different races. Now, instead of having the monthly pancake fellowship, the new pastor wants to have a before school breakfast for really rough kids around the neighborhood. These kids cuss and speak rudely to the servers. Even though they live in walking distance from the church, they have never been inside the church before. The new pastor thinks things are going really well. Attendance is growing, people are being reached for Christ and all of a sudden he is informed that the board is calling for a meeting to vote on his ouster.
This scenario plays out over and over, but we keep doing things the same way. We teach our Bible school students to pray, how to seek and cast vision, and how to take spiritual authority in their congregations. They are told to lead with confidence. But they are not told what to do when they take a declining church. They are not counseled how to build relationships before casting their vision. They are not taught that being voted into office does not automatically give them permission to do things their way. They are not told that they should not believe the encouragment to make changes. They need to make friends, first. They will eventually be invited to lead, but that will only happen after they have gotten to know the folks well enough to earn the benefit of the doubt. They need to be told not to change a thing- even if it means gritting his teeth during every service because the song service is awful and no one seems to care about outreach. They need to be told that they need to listen to all of the long boring stories of how wonderful their predecessor was. Until that is done and he is truly "one of them", he will be the outsider and will be in the minority in every controversy. These people have been there their entire lives; he just got there.
But we're not doing that. Instead, we are sending these highly qualified people into situations without basic tools for survival. Churches and ministers suffer needlessly as a result. I think that is just awful.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Barbarians at the Gate?
In my relatively brief lifetime I have seen a tremendous change in the Assemblies of God. When I was a little boy back in the 60's the A/G was unknown to most of my school friends. When we would talk about where we went to church I envied my Baptist and Nazarene friends, because the other kids had at least heard of their church. The A/G was regarded in many circles as a ragtag group of holy rollers, residing outside the mainstream of church. I find it a little ironic, now, to see the A/G viewed as not only mainstream, but hopelessly bogged down in old-school tradition in the view of the generation now coming to influence. The baby boomers, of whom I am a young member, are no longer the revolutionaries and world changers. We are the obstacles. We are the establishment we railed against so many years ago. Back then many articles were written about the "generation gap". There was a huge chasm separating the worldviews of the boomers from their parents. Now the boomers are separated just as far from their children. As we saw our parents holding us back, our children see us as obstacles to their clear vision for the future.
In watching the online streaming video of the business sessions of the recently completed General Council, I saw that the generation gap is alive and well in our movement. Resolutions were debated and although the words were civil, the attitudes were dismissive and distrustful in several instances. I saw resolutions which would have changed some things that had good technical reasons for their success or failure, seemingly voted up or down based on the emotional pleas of those arguing for or against their passage. It all boiled down to the attitudes of "protecting the institutions" vs. "bringing change to institutions that don't work". And it got pretty intense at times. Challenges were laid down, and threats of leaving were made.
It doesn't have to be that way. As we move forward, both young and old need to realize one important thing. The old will not be "in control" much longer. The old need to remember this and begin to think in terms of legacy. We need to see if the issues we defend so vigorously are transcendent issues or merely institutions of our own making. Organizational structures and matters of polity are not the altars we really want to sacrifice our legacies on. We need to explain the heart of how we got here instead of giving the impression that we are fighing off the barbarians at the gate. We need to be mentoring the young and asking for their counsel and advice on decisions we make that they will be living with. There is no room for "if you don't like it you can hit the road" attitudes. Let's be smart. The old might have a majority now, but their members are dying off. The ranks of the young are growing. They will be the majority soon. We can be mentors with respected opinions or we can wait to be replaced and see every change as an attack on what we have built.
The young need to realize the same thing. They have time on their side. They will be in charge, and soon. Much of what we are doing now will be changed, and for the better in most instances, because the changes will reflect current realities of how organizations should relate to the organized. Fabricating long-term solutions to short-term problems will cause greater troubles down the road. Threatening to leave the movement if a particular resolution is not passed will not help anything. Disrespecting the life's work of the current generation will not help. It is good that the young are frustrated. It means that they are thinking and that they are passionate about what they are inheiriting. In the few short years until the young take over completely, it would serve them well to get to know their predecessors; learn what to hold on to and what mistakes not to make.
Both groups need to be willing to try new things. We have much to learn from one another. Old folks, the non-essential stuff we are defending so vigorously now will be changed. Get ready for it. Young folks, some of your sure-fire ideas will fizzle. Count on it. But we will all benefit more from a commitment to unity than we will from a consolidation of political power.
In watching the online streaming video of the business sessions of the recently completed General Council, I saw that the generation gap is alive and well in our movement. Resolutions were debated and although the words were civil, the attitudes were dismissive and distrustful in several instances. I saw resolutions which would have changed some things that had good technical reasons for their success or failure, seemingly voted up or down based on the emotional pleas of those arguing for or against their passage. It all boiled down to the attitudes of "protecting the institutions" vs. "bringing change to institutions that don't work". And it got pretty intense at times. Challenges were laid down, and threats of leaving were made.
It doesn't have to be that way. As we move forward, both young and old need to realize one important thing. The old will not be "in control" much longer. The old need to remember this and begin to think in terms of legacy. We need to see if the issues we defend so vigorously are transcendent issues or merely institutions of our own making. Organizational structures and matters of polity are not the altars we really want to sacrifice our legacies on. We need to explain the heart of how we got here instead of giving the impression that we are fighing off the barbarians at the gate. We need to be mentoring the young and asking for their counsel and advice on decisions we make that they will be living with. There is no room for "if you don't like it you can hit the road" attitudes. Let's be smart. The old might have a majority now, but their members are dying off. The ranks of the young are growing. They will be the majority soon. We can be mentors with respected opinions or we can wait to be replaced and see every change as an attack on what we have built.
The young need to realize the same thing. They have time on their side. They will be in charge, and soon. Much of what we are doing now will be changed, and for the better in most instances, because the changes will reflect current realities of how organizations should relate to the organized. Fabricating long-term solutions to short-term problems will cause greater troubles down the road. Threatening to leave the movement if a particular resolution is not passed will not help anything. Disrespecting the life's work of the current generation will not help. It is good that the young are frustrated. It means that they are thinking and that they are passionate about what they are inheiriting. In the few short years until the young take over completely, it would serve them well to get to know their predecessors; learn what to hold on to and what mistakes not to make.
Both groups need to be willing to try new things. We have much to learn from one another. Old folks, the non-essential stuff we are defending so vigorously now will be changed. Get ready for it. Young folks, some of your sure-fire ideas will fizzle. Count on it. But we will all benefit more from a commitment to unity than we will from a consolidation of political power.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Political Appointments
I want to rant today about a couple things relating to politics in general and Supreme Court nominations in particular and how they relate to the Christian community.
Of course, anything having to do with anything political has always been an opportunity for the politics of extremes to have a field day. Judicial appointments have always been seen as an opportunity for the majority party to tilt things toward its current proclivities. That alone is fine. That is how politics operates. Political people find ways to achieve majorities so that they can further the issues that enabled them to be elected in the first place. I have no problem with that. Politics is politics. Do or say whatever is necessary to get elected and re-elected while trying to get more like-minded people elected instead of the people of a different mindset.
What upsets me and has caused this rant today is twofold. Starting with the unsuccessful nomination of Robert Bork back in the 80's, the attacks on court nominations have left the realm of principled opposition and have become an opportunity to forecast apocalyptic results with each subsequent nominee. The left screeches that any nominee presented by the right will result in poor people being denied the right to vote, women forced to endure "back-alley abortions done with coat hangers" and a hateful disregard for the disadvantaged. Equally shrill come the charges by the right about the nominees presented by the left. Those charges are predictable, regardless of the nominee. They forcecast that the nominee will re-write the constitution from the bench, will cause the doors of our prisons to be opened up and give more rights to criminals than to law-abiding citizens, and will strip away the foundations of our American values.
In the past twenty plus years, it hasn't mattered who the nominee was, the charges remained constant. The minority party is portrayed as obstructionist for challenging the nomination, and we are supposed to forget that the majority party did the same thing when they were in the minority. So, the first thing that I want to rant about is that politicians of every stripe think that I am stupid and have no memory of previous justices that have been seated and what was said of them during their nominations. When a nomination occurs and the charges begin to fly I am supposed to be offended in one of two ways: If I am aligned with the majority party I am supposed to be offended that such a fine jurist is being attacked so unjustly. If I am aligned with the minority party I am supposed to be deeply offended that the other guys have nominated someone who will undermine the very foundations of what we hold dear. Regardless of which party I am aligned with, I am supposed to forget that we acted the same way last time. I am just supposed to write letters, and most importantly, send money.
The second thing that makes me mad about all of this is that the Christian community has become such visible and predictable participants in all of this. Immediately upon the nomination, I know the content of the e-mails that will be forwarded to me. If the nominee is presented by the conservatives, the e-mails will tell of the deep spiritual walk of the nominee, and how we need to pray that the evil forces of the left will not be able to overturn this nomination. If the nomination comes from the left, the messages tell of the dark, sinister nature of previous rulings by the nominee and that we need to pray that this person will not be able to destroy our "Christian Heritage". And we respond predictably. We see everything as black & white, good vs. evil, and light vs. darkness.
What we forget is that America never gave us freedom of religion and no law passed will ever take it away. America has laws that say that no one will be punished for the practice of a religion and those laws could be overturned someday. But we have freedom of religion just as every person in the world does. The personal cost is much higher to practice your religion in many other countries. It may cause you to die. But the free practice of your religious beliefs is not legislated. It is an individual choice made internally. If every lawmaker and every justice was fully Christian and even if they were practicing Pentecostals; and if every law passed was in complete agreement with the King James Version of the Bible, we would still be a nation of sinners. Laws establish penalties for behaviors we want to discourage, but they don't change hearts.
So, are Supreme Court nominations important? Of course they are important. As Christians who are citizens, we have an obligation to be the best Christian citizens we can be. But please realize that no political party fully encompasses the teachings of Christ. Only Christianity does. Have political opinions. Vote your values. But never forget that neither laws nor lawmakers have a say in our relationship with and our responsibilities to Christ.
Of course, anything having to do with anything political has always been an opportunity for the politics of extremes to have a field day. Judicial appointments have always been seen as an opportunity for the majority party to tilt things toward its current proclivities. That alone is fine. That is how politics operates. Political people find ways to achieve majorities so that they can further the issues that enabled them to be elected in the first place. I have no problem with that. Politics is politics. Do or say whatever is necessary to get elected and re-elected while trying to get more like-minded people elected instead of the people of a different mindset.
What upsets me and has caused this rant today is twofold. Starting with the unsuccessful nomination of Robert Bork back in the 80's, the attacks on court nominations have left the realm of principled opposition and have become an opportunity to forecast apocalyptic results with each subsequent nominee. The left screeches that any nominee presented by the right will result in poor people being denied the right to vote, women forced to endure "back-alley abortions done with coat hangers" and a hateful disregard for the disadvantaged. Equally shrill come the charges by the right about the nominees presented by the left. Those charges are predictable, regardless of the nominee. They forcecast that the nominee will re-write the constitution from the bench, will cause the doors of our prisons to be opened up and give more rights to criminals than to law-abiding citizens, and will strip away the foundations of our American values.
In the past twenty plus years, it hasn't mattered who the nominee was, the charges remained constant. The minority party is portrayed as obstructionist for challenging the nomination, and we are supposed to forget that the majority party did the same thing when they were in the minority. So, the first thing that I want to rant about is that politicians of every stripe think that I am stupid and have no memory of previous justices that have been seated and what was said of them during their nominations. When a nomination occurs and the charges begin to fly I am supposed to be offended in one of two ways: If I am aligned with the majority party I am supposed to be offended that such a fine jurist is being attacked so unjustly. If I am aligned with the minority party I am supposed to be deeply offended that the other guys have nominated someone who will undermine the very foundations of what we hold dear. Regardless of which party I am aligned with, I am supposed to forget that we acted the same way last time. I am just supposed to write letters, and most importantly, send money.
The second thing that makes me mad about all of this is that the Christian community has become such visible and predictable participants in all of this. Immediately upon the nomination, I know the content of the e-mails that will be forwarded to me. If the nominee is presented by the conservatives, the e-mails will tell of the deep spiritual walk of the nominee, and how we need to pray that the evil forces of the left will not be able to overturn this nomination. If the nomination comes from the left, the messages tell of the dark, sinister nature of previous rulings by the nominee and that we need to pray that this person will not be able to destroy our "Christian Heritage". And we respond predictably. We see everything as black & white, good vs. evil, and light vs. darkness.
What we forget is that America never gave us freedom of religion and no law passed will ever take it away. America has laws that say that no one will be punished for the practice of a religion and those laws could be overturned someday. But we have freedom of religion just as every person in the world does. The personal cost is much higher to practice your religion in many other countries. It may cause you to die. But the free practice of your religious beliefs is not legislated. It is an individual choice made internally. If every lawmaker and every justice was fully Christian and even if they were practicing Pentecostals; and if every law passed was in complete agreement with the King James Version of the Bible, we would still be a nation of sinners. Laws establish penalties for behaviors we want to discourage, but they don't change hearts.
So, are Supreme Court nominations important? Of course they are important. As Christians who are citizens, we have an obligation to be the best Christian citizens we can be. But please realize that no political party fully encompasses the teachings of Christ. Only Christianity does. Have political opinions. Vote your values. But never forget that neither laws nor lawmakers have a say in our relationship with and our responsibilities to Christ.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Team Ministry and Planned Transition in the Local Church
Something I have seen over the past several years is that by and large senior pastors do a poor job of leaving long-time pastorates. Our churches suffer as a result. The typical pattern goes like this: A pastor builds a thriving church over many years. He sets the direction of the church and is in the pulpit every Sunday except for 3 or 4 times for vacation or a conference. When he is going to be gone, he calls one of his evangelist friends to fill the pulpit, and although the people understand that he has to miss occasionally, they don't like it. Many times they will skip church if the pastor isn't going to be there, so the pastor hides the fact he will be gone. The church rallies around his vision, and over time, takes on his personality. Those who really like him stay, and those who don't care for him find somewhere else to go. As long as he stays healthy, turns down offers from other churches or denominational positions, and doesn't experience a moral or ethical failure, everyone does fine. The church supports missions, sends a nice contingent to youth camp, and is represented at district meetings. All in all, this pastor is known as a "good" pastor because he has been able to stay in this one place for many years.
What happens over time is the pastor becomes very protective of his pastorate, and the church willingly complies. They like the stability and the comfort of knowing their pastor well, and he enjoys great status and forms his entire self-image around being the pastor of his congregation. People come to him with their deepest struggles. He marries them and their children. He dedicates their babies. He buries those who have gone on to their reward. Neither he or his congregation ever want this to change.
However, no matter how much we resist, things do change. Pastors get old or they contract diseases that bring them down prematurely. Sometimes they succumb to sins of the flesh and it becomes necessary for them to step down. Sometimes they are presented with the district appointment they have dreamed of all their life, or the call from the one church they said they would leave their church to take. Whatever the situation, eventually every pastorate comes to an end.
What happens at this point has been happening to churches everywhere. Every day more churches are plunged into this situation. There is a huge void left behind because the position of pastor has been overtaken by the power of personality. The church will flounder around until it elects a new preacher. They can call him "pastor" but they are not ready for another "pastor". In their hearts they still have one. The new guy is most likely younger with different interests and ministry priorities than "pastor". People who once had the ear of "pastor" now are on equal footing with everyone else. In many cases, someone who didn't have much influence with "pastor" will become fast friends with the new guy. The new guy doesn't preach like "pastor", doesn't serve communion the same way, or even pray like "pastor" did. Some will leave and some will stay, but those who stay will be cautious with the new guy because if they act like they like him too much, they are being disloyal to "pastor". Sometimes attendance plummets, sometimes not. But in nearly every case, momentum is lost. The church is set back for a period of months or even years while they get used to a "new normal". Eventually, the new guy rides out the storm, the people eventually get to know him and his family, and life gets good again. The new "pastor" preaches every Sunday, establishes a vision for the direction of the church, marries and buries, and the cycle begins again. When his time is over, the cycle repeats itself. Many churches never recover from the departure of a long-time pastor. They spend decades remembering when they were full and exciting.
I have wondered in some of the situations I have observed if these pastors get some sense of accomplishment when their churches suffer upon their departure. If they do, it would answer a question I have struggled with: why don't we structure our churches in such a way as to survive inevitable transition?
Coming from a business background, I am accustomed to evaluating organizations. In my management positions in large corporations, I knew that a major responsibility of mine was to raise up the people around me and to keep a constant crop of potential replacements for my position. I was not promotable unless I could demonstrate that someone could fill my position easily. I also had to evaluate departments around me to see if anyone was becoming a "bottleneck". If I saw a department where the supervisor was making himself indispensable by gathering all of the knowledge and authority to himself, it was my responsibility to replace him. In other words, "if I have to have him, I have to replace him" was the mantra given to me by one of my employers.
So from that vantage point, it is frustrating for me to see churches forced into the position of having to essentially start over every few years because of the failure of pastors to value the strength of the church over the strength of their position.
Now that I have layed out my case for the problem, what do I propose as a solution? Two ideas which have already been tried in some quarters with success but are used but rarely; team preaching and planned transition.
Team preaching is simply put, having several preachers. This would include the lead pastor, of course. It would also include any associates with a preaching gift. In a smaller church, or any church for that matter, the preaching team could include qualified lay members. Three or at the most four persons would make up the team. The preaching team meets together to lay out the preaching calender for the year. After blocking out holiday services and special events, the preaching team decides together what principles should be presented to the congregation. These are then divided up among the preaching team. There is no need to try to divide the opportunities equally. The more experienced preachers should have the most opportunities. But the strength of the preaching team comes from two areas.
Team preaching allows the supervised development of younger or inexperienced preachers. Under the tutelage of the more experienced preacher, the young preacher develops his outline according to his assignment on the preaching calender. Instead of being given an off week or lightly attended service to deliver a sermon he has prepared by himself and is in a position where he is likely to flounder, as a member of the preaching team he is involved in the whole aspect of sermon preparation from subject, to scripture, to outline, to illustrations, to conclusion of not only his own sermon but also to the sermons of the other preachers. What an incredible gift to a young preacher to be taught by seasoned veterans in the fundamentals of sermon preparation and in knowing how the sermons were developed, to see those sermons actually presented. So team preaching is valuable to raise up a new generation of effective preachers.
The second benefit of team preaching is that it allows variety in styles and personalities of preachers within a predictable schedule. The people of the church grow used to hearing a known number of preachers. They aren't hearing someone different every week, they are hearing the same three or four preachers over the course of the year. If one of the preachers has to be gone, the replacement is a known quantity. If one of them leaves to go to another ministry post, as many surely will because of the experience they have gained, it doesn't cause a major disruption in the church. If the lead pastor has the opportunity to preach at a conference or an event overseas, the congregation is left in good hands. Also, many associates who would like to preach occasionally but do not want the burden of preparing sermons each week will be more likely to stay at their positions even if they only preach four or five times a year. The lead pastor gives up his every Sunday pulpit, but he gains the opportunity to pour his experience into the less experienced preachers on the team. He also gets a break from the weekly grind of sermon preparation, and even allows him the freedom to see what is going on other places occasionally.
If we can begin to celebrate the preacher who raises up preachers as much as we celebrate the preacher who preaches well, we will begin to see an increase in team preaching. Most likely, the proponents of team preaching will be the younger pastor. But it would be great if the older experienced pulpiteer would see the value in this for the coming generation. It could even extend his preaching life and his legacy!
The concept of planned transition is a tough sell. The generation of preachers who are reaching retirement age were brought up in a paradigm where the leader never shows all of his cards. Far too many retirement announcements are sprung on their congregations without any warning. Many older pastors have their entire self-image wrapped up in their identity as pastor, and they hope to preach until they die. Unfortunately, many of their churches will die shortly thereafter. Planned transition is simply put, grooming your successor. The lead pastor would select someone some years ahead of a potential retirement and begin to pour into that person. At some point, the potential successor has to be brought into the plan. Many pastors have had potential successors accept other churches just months from a retirement announcement because they wanted to keep everybody guessing. It would be wise to increase the preaching load of the designated successor so the congregation gets acquainted with his style. He would be brought in on leadership meetings and in vision development. Eventually, it would be made known to the congregation of the plan of succession. Two or three years would be the optimum transition time. In the beginning, the successor would just be present for pastoral responsibilities. But over time, the lead pastor would hand more and more responsibilities to his successor until the time came for his retirement. He would then make it known that he would no longer be responding as the lead pastor and that he will now take the role of lead supporter of the lead pastor.
As I said earlier, I don't have any allusions about our older pastors doing this. It is too different from what they have seen before. My dream is that this idea will resonate with our younger generation of pastors and that the day will come when we judge the effectiveness of a pastorate on how smoothly he is able to hand off his church to the next generation.
I am burdened for our churches. I grieve everytime I hear of an ugly transition. I hear of them far too often. There is never only one answer to any problem as large and complicated as this one, but I do know that the way we are transitioning churches now is costing momentum and valuable resources needed to spread the gospel in this day. Many churches are undergoing leadership transition every year. My prayer is that we stop making the same mistakes over and over and look for ways to strengthen our churches. These proposals are just two of many possible ways.
What happens over time is the pastor becomes very protective of his pastorate, and the church willingly complies. They like the stability and the comfort of knowing their pastor well, and he enjoys great status and forms his entire self-image around being the pastor of his congregation. People come to him with their deepest struggles. He marries them and their children. He dedicates their babies. He buries those who have gone on to their reward. Neither he or his congregation ever want this to change.
However, no matter how much we resist, things do change. Pastors get old or they contract diseases that bring them down prematurely. Sometimes they succumb to sins of the flesh and it becomes necessary for them to step down. Sometimes they are presented with the district appointment they have dreamed of all their life, or the call from the one church they said they would leave their church to take. Whatever the situation, eventually every pastorate comes to an end.
What happens at this point has been happening to churches everywhere. Every day more churches are plunged into this situation. There is a huge void left behind because the position of pastor has been overtaken by the power of personality. The church will flounder around until it elects a new preacher. They can call him "pastor" but they are not ready for another "pastor". In their hearts they still have one. The new guy is most likely younger with different interests and ministry priorities than "pastor". People who once had the ear of "pastor" now are on equal footing with everyone else. In many cases, someone who didn't have much influence with "pastor" will become fast friends with the new guy. The new guy doesn't preach like "pastor", doesn't serve communion the same way, or even pray like "pastor" did. Some will leave and some will stay, but those who stay will be cautious with the new guy because if they act like they like him too much, they are being disloyal to "pastor". Sometimes attendance plummets, sometimes not. But in nearly every case, momentum is lost. The church is set back for a period of months or even years while they get used to a "new normal". Eventually, the new guy rides out the storm, the people eventually get to know him and his family, and life gets good again. The new "pastor" preaches every Sunday, establishes a vision for the direction of the church, marries and buries, and the cycle begins again. When his time is over, the cycle repeats itself. Many churches never recover from the departure of a long-time pastor. They spend decades remembering when they were full and exciting.
I have wondered in some of the situations I have observed if these pastors get some sense of accomplishment when their churches suffer upon their departure. If they do, it would answer a question I have struggled with: why don't we structure our churches in such a way as to survive inevitable transition?
Coming from a business background, I am accustomed to evaluating organizations. In my management positions in large corporations, I knew that a major responsibility of mine was to raise up the people around me and to keep a constant crop of potential replacements for my position. I was not promotable unless I could demonstrate that someone could fill my position easily. I also had to evaluate departments around me to see if anyone was becoming a "bottleneck". If I saw a department where the supervisor was making himself indispensable by gathering all of the knowledge and authority to himself, it was my responsibility to replace him. In other words, "if I have to have him, I have to replace him" was the mantra given to me by one of my employers.
So from that vantage point, it is frustrating for me to see churches forced into the position of having to essentially start over every few years because of the failure of pastors to value the strength of the church over the strength of their position.
Now that I have layed out my case for the problem, what do I propose as a solution? Two ideas which have already been tried in some quarters with success but are used but rarely; team preaching and planned transition.
Team preaching is simply put, having several preachers. This would include the lead pastor, of course. It would also include any associates with a preaching gift. In a smaller church, or any church for that matter, the preaching team could include qualified lay members. Three or at the most four persons would make up the team. The preaching team meets together to lay out the preaching calender for the year. After blocking out holiday services and special events, the preaching team decides together what principles should be presented to the congregation. These are then divided up among the preaching team. There is no need to try to divide the opportunities equally. The more experienced preachers should have the most opportunities. But the strength of the preaching team comes from two areas.
Team preaching allows the supervised development of younger or inexperienced preachers. Under the tutelage of the more experienced preacher, the young preacher develops his outline according to his assignment on the preaching calender. Instead of being given an off week or lightly attended service to deliver a sermon he has prepared by himself and is in a position where he is likely to flounder, as a member of the preaching team he is involved in the whole aspect of sermon preparation from subject, to scripture, to outline, to illustrations, to conclusion of not only his own sermon but also to the sermons of the other preachers. What an incredible gift to a young preacher to be taught by seasoned veterans in the fundamentals of sermon preparation and in knowing how the sermons were developed, to see those sermons actually presented. So team preaching is valuable to raise up a new generation of effective preachers.
The second benefit of team preaching is that it allows variety in styles and personalities of preachers within a predictable schedule. The people of the church grow used to hearing a known number of preachers. They aren't hearing someone different every week, they are hearing the same three or four preachers over the course of the year. If one of the preachers has to be gone, the replacement is a known quantity. If one of them leaves to go to another ministry post, as many surely will because of the experience they have gained, it doesn't cause a major disruption in the church. If the lead pastor has the opportunity to preach at a conference or an event overseas, the congregation is left in good hands. Also, many associates who would like to preach occasionally but do not want the burden of preparing sermons each week will be more likely to stay at their positions even if they only preach four or five times a year. The lead pastor gives up his every Sunday pulpit, but he gains the opportunity to pour his experience into the less experienced preachers on the team. He also gets a break from the weekly grind of sermon preparation, and even allows him the freedom to see what is going on other places occasionally.
If we can begin to celebrate the preacher who raises up preachers as much as we celebrate the preacher who preaches well, we will begin to see an increase in team preaching. Most likely, the proponents of team preaching will be the younger pastor. But it would be great if the older experienced pulpiteer would see the value in this for the coming generation. It could even extend his preaching life and his legacy!
The concept of planned transition is a tough sell. The generation of preachers who are reaching retirement age were brought up in a paradigm where the leader never shows all of his cards. Far too many retirement announcements are sprung on their congregations without any warning. Many older pastors have their entire self-image wrapped up in their identity as pastor, and they hope to preach until they die. Unfortunately, many of their churches will die shortly thereafter. Planned transition is simply put, grooming your successor. The lead pastor would select someone some years ahead of a potential retirement and begin to pour into that person. At some point, the potential successor has to be brought into the plan. Many pastors have had potential successors accept other churches just months from a retirement announcement because they wanted to keep everybody guessing. It would be wise to increase the preaching load of the designated successor so the congregation gets acquainted with his style. He would be brought in on leadership meetings and in vision development. Eventually, it would be made known to the congregation of the plan of succession. Two or three years would be the optimum transition time. In the beginning, the successor would just be present for pastoral responsibilities. But over time, the lead pastor would hand more and more responsibilities to his successor until the time came for his retirement. He would then make it known that he would no longer be responding as the lead pastor and that he will now take the role of lead supporter of the lead pastor.
As I said earlier, I don't have any allusions about our older pastors doing this. It is too different from what they have seen before. My dream is that this idea will resonate with our younger generation of pastors and that the day will come when we judge the effectiveness of a pastorate on how smoothly he is able to hand off his church to the next generation.
I am burdened for our churches. I grieve everytime I hear of an ugly transition. I hear of them far too often. There is never only one answer to any problem as large and complicated as this one, but I do know that the way we are transitioning churches now is costing momentum and valuable resources needed to spread the gospel in this day. Many churches are undergoing leadership transition every year. My prayer is that we stop making the same mistakes over and over and look for ways to strengthen our churches. These proposals are just two of many possible ways.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Tackling Tough Transitions
Churches are in transition all over the country. Many churches have their identities tied to their lead pastor. When this happens over many years of successful ministry, then the name of the church and the name of the pastor essentially become the same. It is common to hear someone refer to a church and follow up by saying, "You know, Pastor (fill in the blanks)'s church.
That would be fine if pastors never died, never failed, and never left to take another position. Experience, however, tells us that pastors commonly die, fail, and leave. As a result, local congregations all over the country from every denomination plunge into extended periods of turmoil, loss and despair. We call it by the nicer name "transition".
A shortcoming of the congregational or "sovereign" church model is that there are no resources which automatically come to bear to come alongside the local congregation during this time. The church is counseled to fill the pastor position as quickly as possible. As a result, congregations find a pastor without taking the time to acknowledge the feelings of abandonment, loss, betrayal, anger or sadness which will always be present when someone who is as important as the pastor is leaves their lives suddenly and unexpectedly.
If the pastor is promoted to a more responsible position, the church may be proud that their friend and pastor has been acknowledged as being worthy of promotion, but he will not be the same friend and pastor as he was. They fear that the new pastor won't be as close to them and anything that the new pastor does will be compared to how the previous one did it. The passage of time will erase the memories of the faults of the previous pastor and only the wonderful memories will remain. The new pastor has to live up to an unrealistic reputation.
The situation is a little different when the pastor dies, except the memories will exalt his reputation as a pastor even higher. Nothing helps someone's legacy like dying while he is on top of his game. This presents a special challenge to the incoming pastor. Although everyone acknowledges that the old pastor can't return, the new pastor's hands can be tied by traditions. Anything that he changes will bring the comment that "Pastor ***** started doing that back in 1983 and we always loved doing it that way."
When a pastor fails morally or ethically and is forced to leave, there are a myriad of issues to be dealt with. Those who aren't privy to the details will demand more information. In reality, leadership is probably constrained from giving the whole story. The demand for information, even if satisfied, won't make anyone feel any better, but it will open the floodgates of gossip. It takes extraordinary wisdom to know what information is public and what is private, and many will not agree with where that line is drawn. Some of those closest to the pastor may think he was treated ungraciously, and begin to mistrust the leadership team responsible for the removal. Many will be shocked, because they had no idea of any problem until the announced resignation or removal. They will want to know what happened. Some will know more than others, and the gossip begins. Others will darkly speak of suspicions they had years ago. Everyone will suffer a loss of respect for the office of pastor, because their trust has been broken. The pastor who steps into this situation will face people who will display open distrust of both his word and motive because of their hurt.
This same feeling of betrayal is common in the situation where the pastor leaves to go to another church. The feelings are similar to a spouse who has been left for someone younger, more attractive, richer, etc. They will think back to conversations of recent weeks and realize that the pastor was talking to the other church even while he was talking to them, and they knew nothing about it. Few churches see themselves as "stepping stone" churches, but many pastors do. The church who is left may develop the attitude that "Our people stay, but pastors leave. Pastors should just do what we want done." A pastor stepping into this situation will have difficulty casting vision or implementing progressive changes.
I have been very closely involved in a church transition at my local church, and I know from experience that "hurt people" hurt people. I know that the incoming pastor receives the brunt all of the emotions of hurt, betrayal, loss and mistrust. Many pastors don't survive the transition. When they don't, it is bad for them because if they left a successful pastorate somewhere else because they felt called to the new church, they naturally begin to question many things. Did I hear the call correctly? Did I miss God? These and many other questions flood his mind as he and his family attempt to pick up the pieces of what they felt was a calling and attempt to find a new ministry (and livelihood) somewhere else beyond the reach of this dark spot on his resume.
The church, still reeling from the feelings of loss from the previous pastor now have those feelings solidified in the rapid departure of the new guy. They begin to look to themselves for their answers and many times keep the cycle going through pastor after pastor. Once they have "tasted blood" it becomes easier and easier to get rid of a pastor if they disagree with him. Then they become what districts call problem churches and pastors call pastor killers.
In many cases, if the emotions and attitudes of the congregants had been addressed and given time to come to the surface and be dealt with, the church could be healed and be vibrant once again. The problem is that there are few resources available to churches to identify and validate their emotions. Unless the pastor search team finds resources on their own, they will most naturally just go through the process of finding another pastor without addressing the emotions of the congregation. The new pastor will find these emotions coming at him and they will seem totally out of proportion to the issues that bring them on. The pastor will identify these people as trouble when maybe they are just hurting. Many congregations split or scatter with all of the blame being placed on the new pastor, when the hurts from the previous pastor's departure are the real culprit.
We need people who are gifted in transition to make themselves available to step in for a season to help churches through this time. If churches knew that these resources were available, they could invite these resources for a few weeks to several months to help speak to the issues the congregation is dealing with. They could help the church find out who they think they are, who they think God thinks they are, and ultimately find out who God thinks they are. Once they know who God thinks they are, and where He wants them to go, they can recognize when they find the undershepherd who God has selected to lead them there. When congregations have a clear understanding of God's direction and God's choice, it is easier to rebuild the trust and love in spiritual leadership they once had. Then they can go forward to make disciples of all nations.
That would be fine if pastors never died, never failed, and never left to take another position. Experience, however, tells us that pastors commonly die, fail, and leave. As a result, local congregations all over the country from every denomination plunge into extended periods of turmoil, loss and despair. We call it by the nicer name "transition".
A shortcoming of the congregational or "sovereign" church model is that there are no resources which automatically come to bear to come alongside the local congregation during this time. The church is counseled to fill the pastor position as quickly as possible. As a result, congregations find a pastor without taking the time to acknowledge the feelings of abandonment, loss, betrayal, anger or sadness which will always be present when someone who is as important as the pastor is leaves their lives suddenly and unexpectedly.
If the pastor is promoted to a more responsible position, the church may be proud that their friend and pastor has been acknowledged as being worthy of promotion, but he will not be the same friend and pastor as he was. They fear that the new pastor won't be as close to them and anything that the new pastor does will be compared to how the previous one did it. The passage of time will erase the memories of the faults of the previous pastor and only the wonderful memories will remain. The new pastor has to live up to an unrealistic reputation.
The situation is a little different when the pastor dies, except the memories will exalt his reputation as a pastor even higher. Nothing helps someone's legacy like dying while he is on top of his game. This presents a special challenge to the incoming pastor. Although everyone acknowledges that the old pastor can't return, the new pastor's hands can be tied by traditions. Anything that he changes will bring the comment that "Pastor ***** started doing that back in 1983 and we always loved doing it that way."
When a pastor fails morally or ethically and is forced to leave, there are a myriad of issues to be dealt with. Those who aren't privy to the details will demand more information. In reality, leadership is probably constrained from giving the whole story. The demand for information, even if satisfied, won't make anyone feel any better, but it will open the floodgates of gossip. It takes extraordinary wisdom to know what information is public and what is private, and many will not agree with where that line is drawn. Some of those closest to the pastor may think he was treated ungraciously, and begin to mistrust the leadership team responsible for the removal. Many will be shocked, because they had no idea of any problem until the announced resignation or removal. They will want to know what happened. Some will know more than others, and the gossip begins. Others will darkly speak of suspicions they had years ago. Everyone will suffer a loss of respect for the office of pastor, because their trust has been broken. The pastor who steps into this situation will face people who will display open distrust of both his word and motive because of their hurt.
This same feeling of betrayal is common in the situation where the pastor leaves to go to another church. The feelings are similar to a spouse who has been left for someone younger, more attractive, richer, etc. They will think back to conversations of recent weeks and realize that the pastor was talking to the other church even while he was talking to them, and they knew nothing about it. Few churches see themselves as "stepping stone" churches, but many pastors do. The church who is left may develop the attitude that "Our people stay, but pastors leave. Pastors should just do what we want done." A pastor stepping into this situation will have difficulty casting vision or implementing progressive changes.
I have been very closely involved in a church transition at my local church, and I know from experience that "hurt people" hurt people. I know that the incoming pastor receives the brunt all of the emotions of hurt, betrayal, loss and mistrust. Many pastors don't survive the transition. When they don't, it is bad for them because if they left a successful pastorate somewhere else because they felt called to the new church, they naturally begin to question many things. Did I hear the call correctly? Did I miss God? These and many other questions flood his mind as he and his family attempt to pick up the pieces of what they felt was a calling and attempt to find a new ministry (and livelihood) somewhere else beyond the reach of this dark spot on his resume.
The church, still reeling from the feelings of loss from the previous pastor now have those feelings solidified in the rapid departure of the new guy. They begin to look to themselves for their answers and many times keep the cycle going through pastor after pastor. Once they have "tasted blood" it becomes easier and easier to get rid of a pastor if they disagree with him. Then they become what districts call problem churches and pastors call pastor killers.
In many cases, if the emotions and attitudes of the congregants had been addressed and given time to come to the surface and be dealt with, the church could be healed and be vibrant once again. The problem is that there are few resources available to churches to identify and validate their emotions. Unless the pastor search team finds resources on their own, they will most naturally just go through the process of finding another pastor without addressing the emotions of the congregation. The new pastor will find these emotions coming at him and they will seem totally out of proportion to the issues that bring them on. The pastor will identify these people as trouble when maybe they are just hurting. Many congregations split or scatter with all of the blame being placed on the new pastor, when the hurts from the previous pastor's departure are the real culprit.
We need people who are gifted in transition to make themselves available to step in for a season to help churches through this time. If churches knew that these resources were available, they could invite these resources for a few weeks to several months to help speak to the issues the congregation is dealing with. They could help the church find out who they think they are, who they think God thinks they are, and ultimately find out who God thinks they are. Once they know who God thinks they are, and where He wants them to go, they can recognize when they find the undershepherd who God has selected to lead them there. When congregations have a clear understanding of God's direction and God's choice, it is easier to rebuild the trust and love in spiritual leadership they once had. Then they can go forward to make disciples of all nations.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
More Budgeting blah, blah, blah
Another wrinkle to the whole budgeting philosophy is the area of designated contributions. It is a fact that in our North American Culture we favor giving to a tangible project rather than to give to an organization. We may give a regular monthly amount to a church or an organization, but we don't give sacrificially to a "general fund". An announcement of an event, project or initiative will cause us to dig deeper and give more to see the goal accomplished. I'm not saying that I think that this is right or wrong; I am only stating observed behavior.
Because of this behavior pattern, churches and non-profits have seen the need to allow designated giving so people can give to a specific project. As with nearly everything, this has its good and bad points.
The good is that the donor can be sure that his gift goes to what it was intended for, and the project goes forward as gifts come in to fund it. The down side comes when an organization becomes so fragmented in its income structure that the accounting and reporting of funds and expenditures becomes very cumbersome and confusing. Also, there are times when a gift for a project go unused for a long time because there are not sufficient designated funds to begin or complete the project.
A couple of years ago I was involved with an organization that received a $50,000 gift designated to build a new facility. It was a generous and substantial gift, but a new facility would cost approximately $500,000 and there were no other contributions for that project. The result was that other projects went begging and money was actually borrowed to meet operational expenses while the $50,000 sat unused and untouchable due to the restrictions of the donor.
I assume that some of the reasons donors like the designated giving approach are that a) we are afraid that "excess" funds will be used or wasted, b)we like to fund things that resonate with us, and c) we like to have some sense of control over our gifts. Many will "reward" a pastor by giving generously or "punish" him by withholding giving when things aren't going well.
If undesignated giving lends itself to abuse by the organizational leaders, designated giving can lend itself to abuse by donors. A number of years ago, we had a man in our church who received quarterly distributions from an investment. He didn't like the fact that the pastor received a percentage of the tithe and offering as part of his compensation package and didn't want the pastor to "get a cut" of his distribution, so he would designate his "tithe" (designated tithes are not tithes at all) to one or several departments in the church. While the departments appreciated the gift, the donor lost out on the blessing of being obedient in giving by giving in such a way that he blocked an outcome that he didn't like.
In my perfect world, people would give as the Lord led them and would just give to the church to be used where needed most. Church leadership would have an understandable and transparent budgeting system with no opportunity for misuse of funds. Departmental fundraisers and special offerings would not be necessary for normal operations. But we obviously don't live in my perfect world, so how to we do the best we can while living where we are?
I'll get there in a future post.
Because of this behavior pattern, churches and non-profits have seen the need to allow designated giving so people can give to a specific project. As with nearly everything, this has its good and bad points.
The good is that the donor can be sure that his gift goes to what it was intended for, and the project goes forward as gifts come in to fund it. The down side comes when an organization becomes so fragmented in its income structure that the accounting and reporting of funds and expenditures becomes very cumbersome and confusing. Also, there are times when a gift for a project go unused for a long time because there are not sufficient designated funds to begin or complete the project.
A couple of years ago I was involved with an organization that received a $50,000 gift designated to build a new facility. It was a generous and substantial gift, but a new facility would cost approximately $500,000 and there were no other contributions for that project. The result was that other projects went begging and money was actually borrowed to meet operational expenses while the $50,000 sat unused and untouchable due to the restrictions of the donor.
I assume that some of the reasons donors like the designated giving approach are that a) we are afraid that "excess" funds will be used or wasted, b)we like to fund things that resonate with us, and c) we like to have some sense of control over our gifts. Many will "reward" a pastor by giving generously or "punish" him by withholding giving when things aren't going well.
If undesignated giving lends itself to abuse by the organizational leaders, designated giving can lend itself to abuse by donors. A number of years ago, we had a man in our church who received quarterly distributions from an investment. He didn't like the fact that the pastor received a percentage of the tithe and offering as part of his compensation package and didn't want the pastor to "get a cut" of his distribution, so he would designate his "tithe" (designated tithes are not tithes at all) to one or several departments in the church. While the departments appreciated the gift, the donor lost out on the blessing of being obedient in giving by giving in such a way that he blocked an outcome that he didn't like.
In my perfect world, people would give as the Lord led them and would just give to the church to be used where needed most. Church leadership would have an understandable and transparent budgeting system with no opportunity for misuse of funds. Departmental fundraisers and special offerings would not be necessary for normal operations. But we obviously don't live in my perfect world, so how to we do the best we can while living where we are?
I'll get there in a future post.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Give Me Ideas
I've got something rattling around in my head and I need some help to flesh it out. This post will be mostly stream of consciousness and will not draw a conclusion or give a "charge to change".
For a couple of years now I have had an idea of offering chaplaincy services to businesses as an outreach in conjunction with our Project Square Mile. I recognized that many who work in the businesses around here have no church home but still have needs. My thought was to offer hospital visits, prayer, wedding and funeral services, etc. and to offer them at no cost. My dream was that by being a friend to the employee, we would become a friend to the business owner.
I made my first tangible step this morning by offering my services as a chaplain to one of the businesses nearby. The reception was much as I expected. It was polite. I don't know if I will ever hear back. I don't know what my next step should be. I don't know what happens if someone calls when I am gone.
I want to hear what you think. Random ideas, insights, warnings, whatever. I just see an opportunity to be Christ to people who don't know him, don't like him, or who think that He doesn't like them. I'm not trying to recruit new members for my local church.
Talk to me.
For a couple of years now I have had an idea of offering chaplaincy services to businesses as an outreach in conjunction with our Project Square Mile. I recognized that many who work in the businesses around here have no church home but still have needs. My thought was to offer hospital visits, prayer, wedding and funeral services, etc. and to offer them at no cost. My dream was that by being a friend to the employee, we would become a friend to the business owner.
I made my first tangible step this morning by offering my services as a chaplain to one of the businesses nearby. The reception was much as I expected. It was polite. I don't know if I will ever hear back. I don't know what my next step should be. I don't know what happens if someone calls when I am gone.
I want to hear what you think. Random ideas, insights, warnings, whatever. I just see an opportunity to be Christ to people who don't know him, don't like him, or who think that He doesn't like them. I'm not trying to recruit new members for my local church.
Talk to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
