Some Thoughts on Appointments and Leadership

Every Thursday I join about eight other clergy for a text study. Interestingly, they are all Lutheran, with the exception of one other United Methodist and myself. Through the years I have gained a better appreciation for the Lutheran tradition and for my own Wesleyan tradition. I have also had the opportunity to understand more clearly how our respective polities support and promote different things within our communities. One thing I have grown to envy in my Lutheran clergy brothers and sisters is that without the pressure and anxiety that accompanies a year long appointment, they have more influence and more time to focus on mission and vision.

It is very difficult in the United Methodist Church for a clergy person to get a congregation on the visioning train. I mean, after all, the clergy person before tried to get them to to it, but she left in the second year and nothing was resolved. Or, they started a process three years ago with a different approach and a different focus. By the time a United Methodist clergy person has been at a congregation long enough to build the necessary trust, lay the important groundwork, and build strong relationships, more often than not we are moved. This is especially true in small churches which have shorter tenures for clergy.

Our appointment process makes a great deal of sense if we understand the pastor's presence to be primarily priestly and pastoral in nature. If the leadership resides among the laity and the pastor is there to teach, administer the sacraments, tend the flock, and lead worship, short tenures are fine. In theory, it matters not whether we are there one year or thirty years. The congregation itself provides continuity, vision, and leadership. However, if the pastor is going to be the primary visionary and leader, then enough time must be afforded for the pastor to become a trusted leader so that the vision gets shared, embraced, and put into action. And, it seems that pastors are being asked to be just this person - the one who provides the stimulus for and often the core content of the mission/vision of the local church.

It's time to shift our understanding of the appointment process. Clergy, congregations, and conference leadership need to enter into partnerships with one another so that our congregations can fully embrace the idea of being missional. A missional outlook is an intentional orientation to ministry. And, an intentional orientation takes time and risk, which require trust. Let's stop changing appointments every two, three, even four years. Longer appointments are needed... If clergy are being moved because of an inequity in pay, then we need to address that issue and not submit our congregations to continuous clergy turnover that results in leadership vacuums. It isn't far for them and it isn't a way to spread the gospel.

church shelf-life

I've been wondering lately how long a congregation can sustain itself. I mean, when Paul went out there planting churches and growing Christian communities, was he expecting those communities to exist continuously and in tact for all time? Well, maybe Paul did... But I've been reading quite a bit about congregational health, church planting, church growth, and leadership and what I don't see written about is a congregation's shelf-life. Is it reasonable to expect churches to endure 100, 150, 200 years with health and vitality? When did we fall into the pattern of establishing a church expecting it to endure ad infinitum? Or is it possible - across all of our denominations - to adjust our thinking in such a way that we don't bemoan the loss of some local congregations? Could we instead celebrate the power of their witness and rejoice that they've nurtured many individuals over time and also allow these congregations to die with dignity and even... joy?

I'm sure there are congregations out there that are celebrating their 150th anniversary and maybe even their 200th anniversary, but is this a goal to which we should all aspire? Is perpetuity our goal or is faithfulness - even faithfulness of 20, 30, 40 years? Why do all congregations have to last forever? Perhaps they don't.

What does this musing have to do with progressive Christianity? Nothing specific perhaps, but it does have to do with faithfulness, which is fundamental to any real and authentic Christianity. I wonder if we spend too much energy in pursuits that lead us away from faithfulness, from vitality, from lavish grace and prophetic wisdom.

Now, I am not suggesting that we abandon struggling or hurting congregations. Not at all. Congregations - all congregations - deserve to be honored, celebrated, and recognized in a way that best suits them and their true goals. All congregations deserve care and faithful leadership. I am not even suggesting that this "wonder" about end points for congregational life is an "ought." I just wonder...

cong development...another old guy telling me how to reach people my age

Last Saturday I went to a congregational development/church growth workshop led by a national speaker/writer. Once again I sat in a room with people with hair much greyer than mine listening to a speaker with hair much greyer than mine telling me what people my age do and don't respond to in a church. While many of his "fixes" for churches seemed on target, many of his conclusions about people younger than forty-five years old missed the mark of the people that I know. Underlying the entire presentation was an assumption that a large church is a healthy church that is desirable for all folks under forty-five years old.

I have been struggling with this presentation ever since I went to it. Generally speaking, the presenter asserted very strongly that Gen Xers and Millenials will not go to a church that focuses on contemplative worship. Nor are they willing to learn "churchy" lingo. Nor will they turn off cell phones. While there were passing remarks about the importance of authenticity and faithfulness, it seems that these have to be packaged in such a way that oversimplifies the diversity of the population under forty-five years old. It may well be true that the majority of folks who are unchurched need churches that leave religious jargon and tradition at the door, there is a growing group of folks who crave the use of icons, quiet prayer, and the ancient traditions of our faith. I wish that we could have talked about the emerging church movement and the possibility that there is a significant minority that cares about contemplation and that wants a nuanced church that deals realistically with the complexities of life.

While the "technical fixes" may have been on target, the "adaptable change" talked about was a gross oversimplification of people under forty-five years old. I don't have data, but I do have friends who desire not large mega-churches meeting in warehouses. They want small communities that comprise people of all ages. They want a sanctuary that feels like set apart space and that inspire a sense of awe and wonder (something not found in worship rooms that look like corporate meeting rooms). They love stained glass, organs, chants in Latin, and learning the Greek of their New Testaments. They don't want a faith that gives pat and artificial answers to life's difficult trials; they want a faith that anchors them to a rich and ancient past and that invites them to witness to a gospel of liberation and interconnectedness in a world that is too fragmented and individualistic. Of course I believe that my friends and I are in the minority; I am a pastor, after all. But we do count and we are out here. Just because the statistical average calls for us to build corporate feeling and looking churches doesn't mean that there aren't Gen Xers who know how to turn off a cell phone and sit in the Divine Mystery in silence, drinking in the goodness of God.

I don't have any answers. I have a lot of questions about the whole church growth movement. Of course the institution of the church is facing a crisis. In twenty years about 80% of the church's membership will be dead. But I'm more interested in living faithfully in community than in growing my congregation's size for the sake of growth. Perhaps that makes me a bad evangelist. Clearly I am; my church is one of the many that is struggling to grow. And yet, something is possibile in my little church. It is diverse economically. It is diverse theologically. It is diverse politically. It is diverse in age. It has gay and straight folks, married and partnered folks (not many singles...that's a struggle for us). It has children and people entering their ninth decade. We use traditional liturgy peppered by things that make sense to us. We do a lot of little things that I believe hinder our growth, but I don't count in that the use of silence or our use of a sanctuary. Any thoughts on how to build a healthy, non-mega-church, diverse, faithful, progressive, church? I'm open. I sure didn't hear it last Saturday.