This blog is about Interim Ministry and what is wrong
with the current approach made by many dioceses toward transition of leadership
in congregations. This leads me to the
wider topic of what is wrong with policies and procedures being used in TEC
especially given our on-going decline. If
you are a Bishop or diocesan staff person, you may find what I have to say
challenging. I want to challenge all of us who have a leadership role in our
Church to re-evaluate some of our assumptions about how we deal with
congregations.
Before I get to those items that may challenge current
thinking about Interims and Interim
Ministry in TEC, let me start with this positive statement. The well trained Interim can help a
congregation in the transition from one Rector to another in positive and
healthy ways that allow the leaders and congregation to move forward toward
mission and ministry. TEC has a network
of trained interims and this is good, and I know some who are very good at what
they do. Having said this, there are
issues with Interim ministries that
need re-evaluating. Among them, I would
identify the following;
Studies of
congregations continue to highlight that the size and culture of a congregation
as well as its location and the length of the previous tenure are important
ingredients in planning a healthy and good transition.
Transition in A
Large Church
Recently I worked with a larger Episcopal Congregation
that has started the transition to a new Rector after the retirement of their
Rector of over 20 years. The Diocese
insisted that they take on an Interim Minister for two years to assist in the
transition. The congregation had a
senior associate who had served the Church for over 10 years, and the Vestry
believed this associate was in a better position to lead the transition because
he understood the needs and because the congregation is doing well. The
leadership naturally wanted continuity as they moved forward. There was no
hidden agenda to promote the associate since he is near retirement. The Diocese pushed their procedure and
requirement, but the Vestry leadership persisted.
When the Church leaders asked me to visit with them based
on writings I have done on the issues of following a long-term Rector, I found
the Vestry and Search Committee eager to hear what I had to share. They were also quick to see how to avoid
certain land mines and to guide the congregation through this time of some
anxiety. Being a larger church (80% of
Episcopal Congregations are less than 150 Average Sunday Attendance or ASA)
they were first concerned with continuing to sustain the health and momentum
they have. Naturally, the senior associate
is in a unique position to support the leaders and to help with individuals who
were concerned about the future and grieving the loss of the previous pastor.
Here is what I think is wrong in this situation. Diocesan policies and procedure in almost all
dioceses are based on a small church culture.
It is, of course, understandable that small church culture frames the
diocesan response to transition and change, but it violates one of the major
principles of church consultations, namely, the needs of churches are different
based on size and whether the congregation is stable, declining, or
growing.
Dioceses seem to understand this in their smaller
congregations where tenures tend to be short.
These congregations can hardly afford a full-time clergy person let
alone a full-time 2 year Interim. In these situations, it is likely that a 2 to
4 year interim is just exactly what the next rectorship is going to be. In fact, many small churches experience one Interim after another. This is one major reason why they stay
small.
So let me be frank.
The Interim process that is used
in most dioceses is based on the following assumptions. The “normal” congregation is pastoral (75 to
140 ASA) in size, located in a stable suburb or town, and has had a 7 year or
longer tenure. In such situations, a two
year Interim ministry is beneficial. But
what if the congregation is larger or growing steadily? What if a congregation has had less than 7
years with the previous Rector? What if
a congregation is located in a suburb with high turnover in the population? In these situations, a two year Interim could easily stifle any momentum
and even lead to decline. Next, imagine
the tenure was 3 years and the relationship between clergy and congregation
went badly. Many of us who work with
congregations know that an appropriate “Acting Rector” is a much better
transition for such congregations. I did this at the Cathedral in Dallas and it
worked fine.
Xerox or Apple?
Let me push this to even a step further. If you are a
Bishop or work for one, hold on to your seat.
What do such policies and
procedures that are often held by dioceses with the authority of canons mean in
a community and organization that continues to decline steadily?
One secular writer commenting on why so few companies
that were on the Fortune 500 twenty years ago no longer are around speaks to
this directly. The old companies keep in
place policies and procedure that served the company well in its past, but
continued to cling to them when markets, circumstances, and leadership
changed.
One might point out that the current leadership of TEC
has little or no track record of revitalization and growth of current
congregations. Here I am not trying to be overly critical of our Bishops and
leadership; I am trying to raise awareness. Most importantly, I am arguing for
creativity, experimentation, and flexibility to meet the challenges of today’s
situations and those of individual congregations based on the exigencies of
time and place. Isn’t TEC a little
like Xerox continuing to try to improve copy machines as Apple changes the
entire world of work and communications?
Willingness to
Learn from Others
Interestingly, there is help in doing this. After my visit, the senior associate sent me
a email and said that “you may find the following announcement from the Senior
Pastor of a very largest Baptist church on their transition to a new Pastoral
leadership interesting.” Here is the
link:
Notice that the pastor begins by mentioning the planned
transition that the leadership and staff had prepared using the book Next as
a guideline. This book was written on
the positive experiences of larger churches making a successful transition to
new leadership. If you read the Pastor’s
comments, you will also be impressed, as I was, with the insight of that 30
year tenured Pastor about what will take place and his role in making it healthy
and positive. “His role?” Unheard of, in the TEC, where the retiring or
leaving Rector is banished from the congregation for at least one year and might
not be allowed to return as a member of that congregation. My point is that there is insight and help
beyond our denomination if we would care to seek it out.
Bottom line for me
is that a single cookie cutter approach to our congregations in any area and
especially in transitions is not helpful and often very short sighted.
Other Questions
Do you think the long time members of that large Baptist
Church would work through their grieving process in two years? Some older members of that congregation may
never stop grieving for the predecessor.
I live in a retirement community with lots of long term married couples
in it. When there is a loss, do you
really think the widow or widower gets over it after two years even with
therapy? No, they must learn to function
with it.
Do you think that if the staff of a large church all
leave within a year of the new Rector’s arrival, the congregation will
thrive? Continuity is the desire of the
large church doing well. I would contend
that the large church doing well is at risk in a system where declining small
churches dominate. I hope you get my point.
Let
me end with this thought. I remain
optimistic for the future of TEC under the guidance of our mission centered
Presiding Bishop, however, do we really think that policies and procedures (as
well as structures) that were created out of a Christendom view of the Church
will serve us in a post-Christian secular society? I hear many of our current leaders saying
that the Church must change, but I see few of our current leaders willing to
take the risks that such change demands.
What do you think?
