Sunday evening I presided over my first installation service. The circumstances surrounding it reveal something of a trend in our area towards the co-pastor to pastor transitional model among our largest (more than 1,000 member) churches.
For those who aren't familiar with this, here's the deal: as a long-time pastor nears retirement he (so far its always been a "he") works with the session to announce the date of his retirement--usually a year to 18 months in advance--and at the same time the session approves the creation of a "co-pastor" position and forms a Pastoral Nominating Committee to fill it. The Co-pastor position is specifically designed as a short term office so that the retiring pastor and the co-pastor serve together for a short transitional period, two to three months. At the end of that period the long-time pastor retires and the "co-pastor" is installed as the pastor.
Yes, PresbyPolityGeeks, this is an end run of sorts around the Book of Order. The advantage is to avoid a period of transition with an interim pastor after the retirement of the former pastor and during the period of the search. The two churches in our presbytery who have done this were both stable congregations, relatively free of conflict, and united in their concern that their ministry continue uninterrupted by an interim period. Both senior pastors were very cooperative with the process. In fact on Sunday the retiring pastor gave the charge to the congregation in which he stressed the fact that the new pastor was now in charge and that he fully supported him.
For those who aren't familiar with this, here's the deal: as a long-time pastor nears retirement he (so far its always been a "he") works with the session to announce the date of his retirement--usually a year to 18 months in advance--and at the same time the session approves the creation of a "co-pastor" position and forms a Pastoral Nominating Committee to fill it. The Co-pastor position is specifically designed as a short term office so that the retiring pastor and the co-pastor serve together for a short transitional period, two to three months. At the end of that period the long-time pastor retires and the "co-pastor" is installed as the pastor.
Yes, PresbyPolityGeeks, this is an end run of sorts around the Book of Order. The advantage is to avoid a period of transition with an interim pastor after the retirement of the former pastor and during the period of the search. The two churches in our presbytery who have done this were both stable congregations, relatively free of conflict, and united in their concern that their ministry continue uninterrupted by an interim period. Both senior pastors were very cooperative with the process. In fact on Sunday the retiring pastor gave the charge to the congregation in which he stressed the fact that the new pastor was now in charge and that he fully supported him.
This is not to say that all very large churches will follow this model, of course. We have an interim minister at another of these churches following the departure of the senior pastor which was not a retirement. There are times when a church will benefit from an interim ministry following a retirement when the congregation is conflicted about its future direction or needs time to separate from the former pastor before bonding with a new one.
It will take a few more years to see how well this approach worked out. It has been done in other presbyteries, too. Have you seen this trend in your presbytery? Should it be codified in the BOO?
24 comments:
It should go in. Every card game needs a set of rules. So to speak.
I don't like it for several reasons.
1) It's not what the BoO intended. I've seen it used a number of times so a senior pastor can pick his (it's always been men in the instances I've known of) successor. I think it circumvents a healthy process of discernment and self-study that a church needs to go through periodically.
Ministers aren't perfect and doing the co-pastor end-around can let an unhealthy pattern of ministers perpetuate. If it is such a good idea then these churches should overture for the BoO to be changed to allow this to happen without being "sneaky." If the GA or Presbyteries say no then they should abide by their decision.
2) As a member of a clergy couple who has been legitmately interested in co-pastor positions it is frustrating to see the position misused. It's hard enough to look for calls as a clergy couple in our system without churches making it harder on us.
3) It would seem to me the incoming "co-pastor" would be constrained and pressured even more than normal to do things just as his successor did. Often churches need an interim minister to come in who feels secure enough to suggest changes and point out blind spots to the congregation. Interim ministers serve an important role in pastoral transistions.
It seems very un-Presbyterian to flaunt the process that our connectional church has arrived at.
I'm torn about this.
On the one hand, I think that the idea that there is a need for a full blown interim period every time there is a change of pastors has become a sacred cow that dare not be questioned. This is not a good thing. As you said, sometimes there is a real need, sometimes not so much.
On the other hand, I'm anxious about this model. For one thing, only the big, affluent congregations will be able to afford it, which sets up a double standard of sorts. I also don't like the potential for a long-term pastor to hand pick his/her own successor. This seems contrary to our high value of lay leadership and decision-making.
I also think when it is done, it shouldn't be called "co-pastoring". To me, a co-pastor situation is a deliberate choice for long term cooperative and shared leadership. Another term maybe? Transitional co-pastor?
I hope someone somewhere is doing a study on how churches who adopt this kind of transition plan are doing 5-10 years down the line.
The idea of this came about in the old UP church where a number of "tall-steeple" congregations had been grooming Associate Pastors to take over the job for years. A quick look at the 1970's and churches like Arcadia Presbyterian show this. For many it worked very well. It provided a continuity of program, mission and direction. You had a Pastor up on the DNA of the congregation and who already had some knowledge.
There were bad things too as you can imagine. Things could get ingrown or, if it was horribly or even somewhat horrible dysfunctional situation it just kept that going. For the most part, the couple of Presbyteries I saw this happen in, the COM's were pretty savvy as to when to say no way.
With the change to our current BOO the tendency has to be co-pastors. I personally have a much harder time with situations where they share only a few months together. IMHO, I think COM should not approve a move to Pastor unless they had served a minimum of a year together, or maybe even two.
This would make it a real commitment on the part of the congregation since they'll pay twice as much. Secondly, there would be a longer time for the congregation to see if it's a good fit.
Alan
An end-run? Um...yeah.
Around here it looks like this: (this began a long time ago) Intern became Assistant Pastor became Associate Pastor became Co-Pastor became Pastor. Church has not done a mission study/CIF in over thirty years. I hear the HoS is getting ready to hand pick the successor. They really, really do not want to play by the rules.
I'm UCC, so ignore me if you will, but this sounds like large churches saying, "We can do whatever we want instead of adhering to the standards by which all the rest of you abide." I see the same kind of thinking from our larger churches when it comes to benefits ("We can be like businesses and make the pastor share in the cost of insurance, even though smaller churches would never get away with it."), but the overall attitude is one of being untouched by the standards that prevail elsewhere in the denomination or Presbytery or
Conference.
I'm doing an Interim right now, and in talking to other pastors, I hear a number of bad, bad stories about churches that refused to do any kind of work in times of transition. It tends to backfire. And to me it shows a lack of faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to guide and inspire.
It is true that very small churches can be slowed down to a threatening degree by a prolonged interim period, and for those churches that must call a part-time pastor, the pool of candidates is limited. But larger churches don't have that excuse at all. There is no reason that a healthy church can't do its work and maintain momentum, too.
I see both perspectives on this - real helpful, huh?
In the presbytery where I was ordained, the largest church in the presbytery regularly does an end-run around the BoO when calling a pastor. For the past ten years or so they have never done a search process, only ordained from within their own congregation. Now they are going the co-pastor route because the current HoS will be retiring. In this case, I think it is so the HoS - or the power structure at the church - can hand-pick his successor. Not only do they end-run the BoO, but end-run the Holy Spirit. When they do this, it always goes to the floor of presbytery and always passes, though not unanimously.
On the other hand, a church in my current presbytery recently went the co-pastor route. While it was intended to be a long-term arrangement, the longer-term of the two pastors recently had to take an unexpected medical retirement. In this case, it caused less trauma to the congregation who is grieving the sudden loss of a much-loved pastor, to have another much-loved & trusted pastor already there.
Perhaps in the end it depends on the situation. If it's truly in the best interest of the church, then that's one thing. If it's being used to avoid the process - and listening to the Holy Spirit - that's another.
One of the factors that prompted my switch from UM to PC(USA) was a heartbreaking situation in my UM church where the beloved senior pastor left under difficult circumstances and the new guy came in to a congregation wracked by grief and distrust. Down the road, the Presbies were engaged in their lengthy self-study under an interim and it seemed a much healthier process for disengaging from the old (a 25-year pastorate), evalutating the present, and re-thinking the future. So based on my extremely limited experience, I am all for making a considered break and enabling the Session and call committees to do their work unimpeded by the kind of "succession" you describe.
Great discussion, everyone. You raise some excellent points about the problems with the "co-pastor" approach to succession.
One thing I've noticed whenever I've heard this discussed is that clergyfolk are against it while the laity are generally in favor of it because it mirrors the way leadership after retirement of a CEO or other business leader is handled.
Many elders do not see the advantages of the present BOO requirements for an interim minister. Those who do usually cite an experience like the one Gannet Girl related as influencing their opinion.
That's just my limited experience speaking here, though. Perhaps that is not what others have observed.
This layman (as opposed to Layman - brrrr!) is opposed.
I'm going through the "the pastor is changing everything without talking to us" stage of a pastorate. My pastor came about 2.5 years ago after an interim and self-study. The former pastor (who is pastor emeritus and behaving himself very well) was there 42 years.
There's a solid core of anti-change folks. I'll admit that the change could take place a bit slower, but we'd be completely frozen if the former pastor had chosen a successor (no matter how well-intentioned and upright he is).
As a layman who attends a large Presbyterian church I am in favor of this arrangement. It has now been two years since our senior pastor resigned somewhat abruptly and the church is sort of falling apart. The interim pastor is fine, but the folks in the pews like stability and some sort of direction. Interim can't or won't really set direction since that's for the new senior pastor to do. We've been hearing two years worth of "find the blessing in the waiting..." type sermons. All well and good, but meanwhile attendance has plummeted as people move to other churches. I grew up attending a church of a different denomination and it did not take nearly this long to get a new senior pastor.
As an elder in the PC(USA), I do not like the "end run" which IMHO has been a way for the HoS to pick a successor (including the installation you just moderated, QG - and I could say more, but won't). The period of review/reflection/study is almost always a good thing. I've served on COM and as a presbytery liaison to several PNC's and from that experience believe that, while it takes longer than some people would like, it almost always is a healthy and productive process.
But wouldn't it be a more open avenue to allow the Holy Spirit to work if each option was outlined in the BOO? That way each church could decide which road to follow after prayer, discernment and a majority agreement were reached.
And each path would then have set guidelines that follow our reformed traditions.
(I realize I'm just a layperson likely hurting myself here. But my church is soon to face this and QG, you just started me thinking on it)
You can add this elder to the no way list.
ANY church, tall steeple or otherwise needs to have the time to (and I hate this term) discern the current ministries and mission of the church, and decide whether to continue on with them, or to inject new blood and new ideas.
A good interim will have the training and moderating skills to guide the church through this period without feeling lost.
This is one of the reasons I don't believe a pastor should remain in one place longer than 10 years. Anything longer causes stagnation, and it also causes the congregation to expect the next pastor to be or do exactly the same as the last one they had for 23+ years.
Er ... the line above beginning with A good interim ... should have ended with without the congregation feeling lost.
Just needed to clarify that. I knew what I wanted to say, the hands just didn't type it ;)
Reformed C,
You may be onto something with the 10 year "term limit" idea. There's a lot to recommend that. But with our system, the pastors aren't transferred and it can be difficult for an older pastor to move on--even when they want and need to do so.
"This is one of the reasons I don't believe a pastor should remain in one place longer than 10 years. Anything longer causes stagnation, and it also causes the congregation to expect the next pastor to be or do exactly the same as the last one they had for 23+ years."
I can think of several examples where this is true, I can think of several examples where this is not true.
Shawn ... I know what you mean. Again, alot depends on the elders in the congregation, and how they take on the responsibilities as outlined in the B.O.O.
In the context of mostly small, rural congregations, there is also a pattern which may be of concern.
These smaller congregations are not seeking an Interim pastor, but instead are skipping interims by seeking a "Designated Pastor". And if I'm correct, COM's around here are allowing the congregations to seek a Designated Pastor without doing a study - especially if they've done one within the past 10 years.
By seeking a Designated Pastor, it seems to significantly reduce the amount of time without an installed pastor. Folks like the idea of a follow up vote in a couple years - deciding whether to make the pastoral relationship permanent, create another term from the pastor, or seek another pastor altogether.
It has been said that the most productive ministry years are the 5th - 10th years of a pastorate. This is closely followed by years 10-15.
Why create a burden in the system to automatically remove pastors after 10 years? I don't think that will be helpful, and most likely you'll then have congregations finding loopholes so they can keep a pastor. Then folks will try ten years as preaching pastor, ten years as calling pastor (with preaching duties most of the time), etc.
If a pastor continues to study and continues to grow, it is quite possible to have a long-term pastorate which is effective. There's no reason to limit the relationship to 10 years - just because the transition doesn't always go well in the culture of this day.
In a rural context there is generally a greater value to long-term pastorates - if the pastor isn't just looking for a place to hide - but actively seeks to make disciples of Christ.
Term limits on pastors might just have an adverse effect on the small congregations which also desire and deserve effective pastoral leadership.
To preempt a potentially difficult pastoral transition by artifical limits seems to smack against the beauty and biblical nature of the Presbyterian polity and system of call.
denniss--
You make an excellent point about our ability to find a loophole and a way around regulations. Truly, man and woman-kind are very inventive in this regard--witness the IRS code and the repeated fruitless attempts of Congress to close loopholes. As soon as one is closed, another opens up!
The congregation here brought in an Interim a month after a 7 year pastorate. A year later (1987) a lawyer from the congregation went to Presbytery and got folks to agree to suspend some specific operating rules. Then, he got the Interim status changed to Stated Supply.
A year later the pastor was installed, and served a little over 7 years total. Basically the lawyer caught folks off guard and got his way (as a representative of the PNC). The lawyer doesn't live here anymore, but he still brags about this. Folks around Presbytery didn't, and don't, like this sort of thing.
Of course it was a lawyer who thought that up--that's what we do! That's an instructive example.
El Jefe and a couple of lawyer buddies developed an elaborate church merger scenario in the '90's which featured former PCUS churches taking over PCUSA churches in order to take advantage of their "grandfather clause". Too long to describe here, but it was another creative end run around the BOO -- but the idea has never been implemented anywhere as far as I know.
So, I'm not Presby either... but in the Episcopal Church, this is a common practice for transition between bishops. But, I think that the rationale there is that being a bishop is really not the same job as being a priest, even of a really big church. We call the bishop-whos-gonna-be-in-charge a coadjutor, because we like funny words.
I think the interim is generally healthy, but in our denomination, it seems that those good & qualified interims are not as plentiful as the congregations in transition. I think we need some more ways to approach the whole idea.
Post a Comment