The Possibilities
and Perils of Following Long-Tenured Ministers
We
were a few weeks shy of moving to a new church. I was reading one of those Lyle
Schaller books on the realities of church dynamics, and I got scared. I learned
I had a very good chance of failing. Why?
I
was going to follow a minister who had served and served well for 38 years. He
was rightly honored and loved. Schaller
said that when a minister follows a minister who has served 15 years or more
and who dies in or retires from that pastorate, the chances are 3 out of 4 that
the immediate successor will fail. He will serve as “the unintentional interim”
or as some say, “the sacrificial lamb.”
Nine
years later I was still there. God had blessed with modest success. Attendance
grew; the missions program was revamped; the Sunday School program was
strengthened; a capital campaign was undertaken; some building renovations and
a building expansion were completed; and such like. During the same time I was
able to serve for 6 years as a member and then president of the local Christian
school board and as a member of a study committee and of the missions committee
of my denomination. Of course, the more important questions have to do with
whether the people were cared for, nurtured, and enabled to grow and whether the
congregation enjoyed spiritual growth and health. That is for others to say,
but I think there was some good in these areas, too. Then I made the worst and
most fateful decision my pastoral life.
I
left to accept a call to follow a minister who had served for 43 years. Within
three years I was gone, and life has never been the same.
Why
did the first pastorate work? These are my guesses:
(1)The
church leadership and to some extent the congregation knew that changes were
needed and were ready to support change even though neither I nor they knew all that would entail. They wanted strong leadership to accomplish change.
(2)The
previous pastor handled the transition in an exemplary way. When I “candidated”
he took me into his office after the evening service and said, “If you come
here, it will be your church.” He meant it. He never interfered though, I am
sure he did not agree with some of the changes that occurred.
(3)The
elders were supportive and forgiving. There was no behind the scenes
maneuvering. No encouragement was given to malcontents within the congregation.
And, though they saw much of the worst of me in terms of sin and weakness, and
though I made a great many mistakes,
they more than put up with me. When I left, I felt that to a man every elder
was my friend.
(4)I
was able to hire my own secretary not long after I began, and I was authorized to
find and then recommend to the Session our assistant pastor. I know all the
ideals, but the reality is that staff whom you find are almost always more
loyal than those you inherit. (BTW, that assistant, later associate, proved
another Schaller statistic: that in the senior – assistant/associate relationship 90% of
the getting along is done by the associate.)
(5)Though
ministers are obliged to say it, it is no less true, that whatever good was
accomplished was because of God’s grace and blessing. We plant and water, but it
is God’s field, and he alone gives any increase.
What
happened the second time around? The truth of this situation is the truth of
all my failures as a pastor. The primary cause of all my pastoral failures
is me. Here are some factors:
(1)
I gave in to restlessness. I began to feel that, if I ever were going to move
again, the time was now. Best to sing often, “I would not have the restless
will that hurries to and fro, seeking for some great thing to do or secret
thing to know; I would be treated as a child and guided where I go.”
(2)
I responded to flattery. The retiring pastor approached me and told me he could
leave in peace if I succeeded him. When I asked the chairman of the search committee
why I should come, he told me there was a unique match between me and the
congregation. I should not have taken such things to heart.
(3)
I made a wrong guess about myself. I thought that, since it had “worked” to
follow one long-tenured minister, perhaps there was something about me and my “style
of ministry” that made me well suited to such transitions. If you can’t
identify and name the factors, don’t guess there are such factors.
(4)
I followed the money. Simply put, I was offered more money. I thought I needed
more money. I saw the advantages of more money. Money is hard to resist, but sometimes
it should be resisted.
(5)
I made some wrong assumptions. I assumed that I could play well with engineers
and accountants. I assumed that the
leaders and people wanted me to do what I had done in the previous pastorate in
terms of preaching and of leadership of elders, deacons, and congregation. I
assumed I could do a lot in short time. I assumed I could build a consensus for
some big changes. Some things were accomplished with regard to missions, church
relocation, and other pressing matters, but I used up too many chips too fast to sustain
the momentum.
In
the end ministers are pawns – not of fate but of God. He puts us where he sees
fit, uses us as suits his purposes, and sets us aside according to his timing.
He need not explain his ways to us. Perhaps that is the most important lesson
of all.
1 comment:
Thanks, Rev. Smith.
As recent seminary grad and a current AP to a long-tenured faithful Sr. Pastor (and even longer-tenured Session), I am learning well the 90/10 rule.
The last paragraph was Curmudgeon gold!
Post a Comment