4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

Interim Ministry

So seriously . . What is a Settled Pastor?

Is A “Settled Pastor” A Worthy Goal?

settledpastorcartoonI grew up in the Church . . . in a preacher’s family. A network of preachers’ families, in fact. Generations of pastors and numerous aunts and uncles representing several denominations working in ministry.

It was not until recent years that I heard the term “settled pastor.” But then, fifty years ago, most pastors were settled. It was so much a part of what being a pastor meant that there was no special term.

Perhaps we hear the term today because the Church is hanging on to a relic of the past. These are unsettling times!

What is a “settled pastor”? 

A “settled pastor” is a pastor who is called by the congregation with no term limitation. Sometimes it is called a “regularized” call.

It’s not something lay people think about much. They should. The concept can make or break their church and cause lay leaders a lot of heartache. And they won’t see it coming!

There was a time when pastors were assigned to a congregation or called by congregational vote. There they stayed, baptizing, marrying and burying generation after generation of the faithful. A pastor might leave to serve a richer parish or to suit personal goals. The only other reasons to leave were seriously bad behavior or conflict. Poor performance was rarely a reason. Congregations can eke by with a poor, but beloved, pastor for years as resources dwindle.

Redeemer Ambassadors visited one congregation recently that had the same pastor for 18 years. It declined steadily despite the fact that their neighborhood was vibrant. They closed the week after our visit.

They had a “settled pastor” but where did that get them?

The reason the term “settled pastor” is used more frequently is that the concept is becoming rare. Pastors rarely settle into their communities intending to stay for decades—even when they accept calls as “settled pastors.”

Some accept calls to small congregations as stepping stones, proving grounds. Others don’t want a long-term commitment or even a full-time commitment. Their personal lives demand flexibility. Many enter the ministry as second careers and anticipate retiring within a decade or so. They will never be seasoned, full-time pastors. Frequently, they become “interim pastors”—also a new term.

It is probably the growing use of “interim” pastors that the term “settled” has become prevalent. The concept of “interim ministry” is short-term help while congregations consider long-term candidates. Interims terms should be a few months. They are often well over a year—intentionally so. The better to keep the stable of pastors employed.

Consequently, the goal of calling a “settled pastor” is archaic and unfair to congregations who buy into the concept that the pastor they are calling is deeply committed.

The modern congregation is likely to be equally unsettled. Demographics within communities can shift every five years.

So why is the Church pretending that “ssettled pastors” are either the norm or a good idea?

The concept serves another purpose that is rarely stated.

Settled pastors have significant constitutional advantages for clergy and professional leadership. In the Lutheran Church, the settled pastor can leave a congregation at any time with only 30 days notice. However, if a congregation is unhappy, stagnant, achieving none of its goals, declining in giving and attendance and facing a fragile future, they cannot make a leadership change without taking a vote—a two-thirds vote. Usually, twenty percent of an organization plays significant leadership roles. So lay leaders must convince three times their number, from a pool of less committed members, that a change is in the best interest of the congregation.

Having a settled pastor in place, means a problem for the regional body has been solved. A pastor has a job for as long as he or she wants it. Neither the pastor nor the congregation will be knocking on their door for a while!

Church lay leaders must be very careful. Making any kind of demand on a settled pastor can signal war. It won’t be declared as such but lines will be drawn. The settled pastor can easily use his or her position within the congregation and community to subtly rally support. The war will be fought with gossip and innuendo. “Hush!  Did you hear ….?”

Lay leaders may be acting with the future of the church in mind, but soon they may be seen as malcontents and troublemakers. “Poor pastor! What he or she has to put up with!”

Their reputations in the community may be strong enough to bear it, but their voice in the church will be filtered.

Congregations will be divided. Conflict may take a serious toll and years to resolve—whether or not the pastor stays.

Perhaps it is time for congregations to insist on term calls as the norm rather than the exception, so that the comfort and security of being a “settled pastor” does not lead a congregation into long-term decline. If a course correction can be made, the existing pastor will have incentive to lead—create and meet benchmarks—and not take their call for granted.

“Unsettled pastors” might be the right servants to lead today’s church. 

It’s more work for hierarchy and less secure for clergy.

But then church work is always hard and insecure for the laity.

All welcome.

11 Jun 2013

Settled Pastors in an Unsettling World

“There are no pastors for you.”

Bishop Roy Almquist told Redeemer this at the turn of this century as a prelude for doing nothing to serve our congregation in his second six-year term.

He may have been very right.

It is no accident that small churches vastly outnumber large congregations. People are attracted to small congregations. Sociologically, an ideal congregation has about 150 members.

The model congregation must have 300 members to support the financial expectations of clergy and the regional body—and that’s before they do a lick of ministry or mission. When a congregation gets that big, it loses some of the qualities that attract many people to church.

A broader geographic area is needed to support this model which makes it more difficult for the congregation to stay in touch with the local needs.

The model is presented as economically desirable — fewer churches serving more people. But statistics show that fewer churches are serving fewer people. Statistics overall are down.

This model relies on the concept of a “settled pastor”— a pastor who serves a congregation for some seven years or ideally for decades. This is unrealistic today and is not likely to lead to church growth.

The epidemic of church closures is a result of a failure to adapt—hanging on to a dying model until it is too much work to turn things around—although it is probably still possible.

To survive in a diverse, quickly changing community culture, congregations need flexibility. They need to draw on professional skills that one person is unlikely to have. They may need these services for only six months, but they can’t get them because their money and fealty is tied up in one “settled pastor.”

Perhaps the growing number of clergy taking interim pastor training is a sign that they recognize that the “settled pastor” model will no longer advance the church from either the clergy or lay point of view.

The interim approach — a short-term plug for a hole which will eventually be filled more permanently — may need adjusting. It puts the management of congregations in the hands of the regional bodies—with which the congregations don’t have any day-to-day knowledge or relations. Similarly, regional bodies know only what they are told about the congregations by people with a vested interest. The odds for misinterpretation are good.

Congregational control of their own ministry — the Lutheran way — is slipping away. Attitudes are changing as the regional bodies rely more and more on their power and less on their sense of service. Congregations begin to defer decisions and rights that are constitutionally theirs. It doesn’t take long for this to become “the norm.” Congregations that insist on their rights are ridiculed and shunned—the Redeemer experience.

We will talk about this more in a later post, but this abandonment put us in an ideal position to experiment. And we were experiencing success.

The only answer many congregations hear is that they should continue to pour money down a non-producing hole until they are drained both financially and spiritually. Then, unable to meet the future, there is a grand celebration of the past as the regional body shutters the church and walks off with the spoils. Such a celebration is scheduled this week at Holy Spirit in NE Philadelphia.

We can’t help but wonder what might have been.

21 Feb 2013

Settled Pastors and Unsettling Mission Goals

Settled Pastors vs Interim Pastors

Traditionally, it is a goal of church management to foster long-term bonds between a congregation and one leader. These long-term pastors are called “settled” pastors.

That a settled pastor is desirable or necessary for a healthy congregation has been a relatively unchallenged concept.

Expectations are in conflict with reality from the start. The length of most pastorates is less than seven years.

Unrealistic expectations may be a root source of decline in the church.

Settled pastors evoke a caretaker image. You have a community of people who go happily about their lives, knowing that a pastor will be there to nurture the young, guide critical life decisions, celebrate life passages and hold hands in times of crisis.

But so much involving church mission is unsettling. Mission requires leaders who can strategize for change, respond to a crisis (the earlier the better), introduce the unfamiliar and shake a congregation’s sense of complacency.

The Church’s desire for long-term pastorates has created a new job title—the interim pastor.

The concept of interim ministry is to provide short-term leadership—which in the Church can mean one or two years—to help a congregation assess their ministry as they seek a new long-term pastor. Does it make sense to place a pastor for one or two years to prepare a congregation for a pastor who is likely to stay only three or four years?

Interim ministry is described as a time for putting aside affection for a departed long-term pastor (they actually use the term “grieving,”), restructuring and goal-setting.

Affection for a pastor is assumed by Church leaders. You can only measure the people who come to church. Even the best church analysts cannot count the people who stay home because of dislike or opposition to a pastor. Yet, this is a real part of congregational dynamics. So while Church leaders assume the congregation is grieving there may be a strong faction that is welcoming change and raring to go!

The concept of interim ministry was first fashioned to deal with congregations who face unexpected change in leadership (sudden death of a pastor, pastoral wrong-doing, or church conflict). It has grown to become almost compulsory.

This managerial goal may be in conflict with a congregation’s ultimate goal — mission. The Church exists in community to worship and serve God.

In a world where communities are totally restructured every decade or less, seeking a settled pastor may be undesirable, if not impossible. Yet, we still expect it, leading to a broad misconception that if a congregation has a series of short-term pastors that there is something “wrong” with the congregation. Short-term pastorates may actually be a sign of vitality!

The modern church must train all pastors in “transition” skills.

Maybe the new expectation of congregations should be mission-oriented, short-term pastors. After all, every pastor is interim — some just longer than others!

2×2 is happy to note that others are questioning interim ministry, too. Read the discussion at Alban Institute Roundtable.

03 Jul 2012

10 Reasons to Question the Wisdom of Interim Ministry

Interim Ministry is a fairly modern trend of assigning a short-term minister to a parish that has recently ended a relationship with one pastor and intends to call a new pastor. The process is described in a similar manner by various denominations as a time to minister to the people and help them identify ministry objectives.

One denomination described the interim period as a buffer between a congregation and its relationship with a former pastor and expectations of a new minister. One said, “The interim minister makes the necessary changes in a congregation. No reason to have the congregation get mad at the new minister. Let the interim take the heat.”

The days of a congregation enjoying the leadership of a single pastor for decades may be numbered.

This sounds like a good idea on the surface, but there is a danger that the practice could serve less noble purposes. Our recent visits to 34 congregations found a surprising percentage engaged in some stage of interim ministry. Some were just beginning the process. Some had been in interim status for more than a year. One had a new interim at our first visit and we learned a few weeks later that another interim was stepping in. “It didn’t work out,” the newer pastor explained.

Both the number of interim ministries we encountered and their length raised questions. We do not claim to have the answers but the questions could be important.

  1. What other aspects of our lives have such long fallow periods? We change presidents and mayors, jobs (and even spouses) without months of interim work. An argument might be that presidents and mayors have long campaigns before they are chosen for their jobs. That leads us to consider the call process.
  2. Perhaps it is the call process that needs changing? With the average length of pastorates fairly short — less than seven years — an interim ministry can be a frequent occurrence, adding to instability. The scenario could be 12-18 months of interim ministry, 12 months of honeymoon, three years of ministry, 12-18 months of interim ministry, etc. (Revolving door). While pastors may feel that the interim has eased the transition process, the lay point of view is that the process starts all over again every time the face in the pulpit changes — interim or not. The call process, at least in our denomination, can be unsettling. Candidates are given every opportunity to learn about the congregation, while the names of candidates are withheld from the congregation until a sample sermon is delivered. The approval process is often based on little more — yet congregations expect so much more!
  3. Shouldn’t congregations undergo a constant process of self-examination? If ministry is to be effective, congregations will change constantly. Communities also change quickly.
  4. Shouldn’t all pastors have skills to help congregations assess goals and strategize?
  5. Does the interim process change the role of lay representatives? Who does the interim pastor report to and work for — the congregation or the regional body? In several of the churches we visited, the interim pastor announced that he or she would be making a report to the bishop that week. There was no mention of any lay involvement.
  6. Wouldn’t it be easier to train one leader to handle change than to try to work with dozens of congregation members?
  7. Is the interim process good use of congregational resources? Congregations pay good money to the interim for a very short-term investment. If this is a period where ministry concentrates on self-analysis, that translates to a long period of time when resources are spent on activity that is not, at least for the time being, outreach-oriented. Are visitors during the interim going to be attracted to a congregation in long-term transition?
  8. Do interim ministries meet the career needs of pastors and administrative needs of regional bodies more than the ministry needs of congregations? Interim pastors are making short-term commitments. Short-term commitments are safer entry points for the many seminary candidates entering ministry as a second career. Interim pastors don’t have to consider the hassles of moving and relocating families. It’s an attractive opportunity for pastors who don’t want to make changes in their lives that may not match the career objectives of their spouses. But the congregations are expected to change!
  9. Do interim pastorates change the political balance? An overlooked consequence of the over-dependence on interim pastors is the shift of power away from the congregation. Interim pastors have close ties and loyalty to the denominational body and its current leadership. When a high percentage of congregations have interim ministries, that has the potential to skew the decisions of representative governing bodies.
  10. Why should the interim process, led by experts in interim ministry, take more than three months?
21 Nov 2011