In my last blog, I
discussed the issue of tenure. I
mentioned that I thought 7 to 15 years was a good tenure for Rectors, but that
after 15 years dynamics begin that often make the transition to the next Rector
difficult. I shared material that I
give to Vestries following such a long tenure with the land mines
highlighted. I want to continue this
topic and share a collection of thoughts about issues with tenure, long and
short ones.
First, I want to start with an observation that will
probably get me in trouble with a whole network of people, namely issues
related to interim clergy.
I have found that our Bishops put too much emphasis on the place of interims. This doesn’t mean that I think they are not
important. I just believe they are limited in what they can accomplish. Of course, a well-trained and intentional
interim can be a great help to congregations in transition. But many if not most Dioceses have made one
to two year interims almost mandatory for every congregation. This is intended mainly to allow the
congregations to grieve the loss of the past Rector before taking on a new one.
Two observations seem important at this
point. First, how much grief is there in
a suburban congregation for a Rector who has been in place for five or less
years. Suburban churches have constant turnover
of people. This is very different from
the town church losing a Rector who has served for 20 years. However, in the former suburban situation, a
two year interim is much too long. In
the latter, two years is way too short to deal with the dynamics of grief and
loss.
In conflictual and problem
congregations, a much better solution is the appointment of an “Acting Rector”
who should continue to act with the support of the Bishop until signs of health
and healing are apparent and the congregation is moving toward mission and
vitality. I inherited just such a
situation as Acting Dean at St. Matthew’s in Dallas. Under the right circumstances an Acting
Rector could make a good future Rector for the congregation.
We learned this in the Diocese of Texas
under Bishop Payne. There are times when
the Bishop is better suited to select a new ordained leader than a wounded or
dysfunctional congregation. We did this
four times during my 9 years there and each congregation went on with their
appointed person to flourish and grow.
And finally on the topic of Interims let
me observe this, a clergy person who has failed in leadership in several congregations
will probably not succeed as an effective interim NO MATTER HOW MUCH INTERIM
TRAINING YOU GIVE THAT PERSON!
Now that I have probably
riled up a bunch of people including some Bishops, let me move on to other tenure
Issues.
Tenure isn’t everything. What one learns is often more important.
An assistant principle who
had been in place for 18 years once lost out for a position to another
assistant principle who had served for only three years. The first applicant complained. The head of the School board gave this terse
but telling reply. We felt that you had
18 years of repeating the same experience year after year while the other
candidate had 3 years of varied experience.
My
point is that Tenure can lead to stability, but it doesn’t demonstrate
leadership. For this, one needs to look
at other issues. So just being able to
stay in place and tread water for 7 to 15 years means little. Actually, it portends congregational decline
and often leads to congregational dysfunction.
I
have over the years met certain Anglo-Catholic clergy who content that their
job is to celebrate the Mass and carry out other liturgical and sacramental
ministries and that is the only true work of clergy. Not only are such clergy wrong, but they
often function as more or less chaplains to fairly dysfunctional families who
dominate small congregations. In
addition, such a contention about the role of Rectors is not what the Canons or
the Ordination Service says.
My
observation is that healthy congregations have BOTH effective and capable
ordained and lay leadership. I would
content that Anglican Polity assumes that both are essential.
Four years is now the average tenure
I have met several clergy
including one Bishop who assured me that “a Rector should move every 5 years
because after that you have used up all your good ideas.” (By the way, the Bishop served as Bishop for
15 years and probably did use up all his good ideas in his first five.) But ordained leadership isn’t merely about
having good ideas.
One
of the truths we used to share at the Leadership Training Institute in
Evergreen, Colorado was this; “Most clergy greatly over-estimate what they can
accomplish in the first five years and vastly under-estimate what they can
accomplish in the second five years.
What
I have often taught clergy at conferences is that in the third to four year of
a Rector’s tenure a kind o power shift takes place where the Rector moves from
being one of the leaders to being the leader of the leaders. One factor is that after the third
anniversary, the Rector becomes the tenured member of the Vestry. There are other factors, but that is for
another blog. The point is that at this
moment there is often tension and sometimes conflict. More clergy should persevere through this period,
but alas many find another congregation.
The average tenure for Episcopal Clergy is around 4 years which says
volumes about the importance of this period in establishing one’s leadership
and how many clergy fail to do this.
So, should I stay or should I go?
So how should Rectors know
when to leave or when to stay? My first
answer to this is to pray and to seek guidance from a Bishop or some other
mature Christian mentor. If through this
prayerful discernment God tells you to leave then leave. If God tells you to stay, then stay!
One
helpful tool when things are not that clear can be answered by studying the
written history of congregations. Here
we find that chapters in such books often begin or end with the transition to a
new Rector. (Only those chapters titled
“The Great Fire” take greater precedence over tenures!) So I have often asked clergy trying to
discern these three questions.
First,
what chapter are you writing in your own ministry?
Second,
what chapter is the congregation writing at this time?
Third,
are you the leader to best help them write this current chapter? If so, stay. If not, let another take you place.
One last
observation on tenure and congregational vitality
With
many congregations in decline, the numbers of full-time clergy positions are
also in decline. This means many
congregations especially in towns end up with part-time, bi-vocational or
retired clergy. This can be a good
thing, but many in the Church are claiming that this is a general trend that
should be seen as a positive opportunity for lay leadership and so-called
“total ministry.” They are generally
wrong. This is shown when we ask the
question that most Episcopal Leaders seem unable to ask; “What would it take to
develop such a smaller or declining congregation into a larger and growing one?
“ Putting a part-time ordained leader in
place (and especially several in a row with short tenures) will almost never
develop a small church into a larger one.
What Kirk Hadaway once observed about the tenure of clergy is still
true. “The presence of a full-time,
dedicated, and capable clergy person in a church is statistically been shown to
be beneficial to a congregation’s health and vitality.” To this observation, I would enthusiastically
add “AMEN!”
