Let’s talk about leadership transition, namely, calling a new pastor. This is where many congregations go astray, because they make transition more difficult than it needs to be, because they infuse the process with “magical thinking,” and because they fail to complete the transition process.

Point 1: Making leadership transition too difficult

Selecting new leaders is important. No question about it. But if a congregation and its judicatory maintain a steady process of recruiting and training new leaders, then it shouldn’t lead to the convulsions that we tend to see.

The next pastor, for example, should be someone already in view. An associate carefully groomed and nurtured, or a pastor identified in partnership with your judicatory office as being a good fit for you, or a former associate who knows you and is ready now for a lead role. Instead of conducting a national search to find a perfect stranger to take a stab at your position, go with someone you know.

What If we want to change direction? you ask. Selecting a stranger who’s unlike your former pastor isn’t the way to change direction. Direction can only change when in-place leaders do a thorough self-examination, a thorough study of context and opportunities, address issues holding the congregation back, and then, in a manner likely to be trusted by constituents, consciously and transparently change direction. Asking a stranger to come in and change you simply guarantees conflict and failure.

Point 2: Beware “magical thinking”

We use some odd and unhelpful metaphors to consider leadership. We use, for example, the language of courtship, romance and marriage. The search committee wants to “fall in love” with the candidate, so that the “marriage” between pastor and people can be a good one. As in a courtship, they place high value on emotional connections, on whether the candidate seems to “love” them in return.

This is nonsense. You are hiring a leader, not committing to a life-partner. You are hiring someone who has the skills, maturity and experience to do the complex work of leading a church. When you use romantic language, you feed the dependency needs of weaker members, encourage the very crossing of intimacy boundaries that cause trouble in congregations, and set up both pastor and people for the inevitable heartbreak of unrequited love.

Another unhelpful metaphor is superman or superwoman. This is the star who can come into your church, take charge, articulate a compelling vision, get everyone excited, and lead a charge into the future. This, too, is nonsense. Most organizations – and nearly all churches other than startups – don’t vest their leaders with that kind of leverage. They need team-builders, community-builders, men and women who can draw the best out of people, not drive them onward in a vision they haven’t come to share. Quite understandably, constituents don’t trust the lone ranger who takes charge and shuns collaboration.

A third unhelpful metaphor is rescuer. Come and save us from ourselves, calling teams say. We wasted the past several decades enjoying our precious little thing here, and now it’s no longer viable and we need to someone to rescue us. Or, we love to squabble, but now we have become toxic, and we need someone to cleanse us. Or, we are lazy lumps who don’t lift a finger for our congregation, and now we are failing, so come and light a fire under us. Those scenarios go nowhere.

Point 3: Failing to complete the process

Hiring the right person is a good first step. But “onboarding” is just as important. That’s the process by which a new employee is given the necessary information, support, tools and encouragement to enter into the new job.

Information given to new pastors is notoriously inaccurate, if any is given at all beside last year’s church report and a church profile that reads like a Christmas wish list. A healthy church will have good statistics and analysis ready for the new pastor.

The abandonment of new hires is simply bizarre. The most dangerous time in a pastor’s career is the first 18 months of a new pastorate. The leaders who called them often vanish. They turn out to be loyal to longtime members, not to the new pastor. Staff tend to withhold affirmation. A healthy church will stand with their leader when people start to complain, as they always do.

The transition isn’t complete until the new leader is on board, functioning confidently and effectively, and beginning to make a difference. This could take two to three years, given the complexities of church life. A healthy church will have a team composed of recognized lay leaders and some human resources professionals whose job is to help the new pastor get launched.
 

About the Author

Tom Ehrich is a writer, church consultant and Episcopal priest based in New York. He is the publisher of Fresh Day online magazine, author of On a Journey and two national newspaper columns. His website is Church Wellness – Morning Walk Media