All Ministry Is Interim Ministry.

{I send this in to the Outlook.  We'll see if they print it.  Meanwhile, feedback is appreciated.}

            The good news of Jesus Christ has an inherently transformational character.  It means change and transition.  Jesus’ comes into the world for healing, liberation, salvation, and deliverance… all of which are about change.  Jesus’ ministry was anything but stable.  He moved from place to place, and he challenged the status quo at every turn.  Jesus empowered people to think and act in ways that expressed the Kingdom of God, which was a reality very different from what prevailed in their society.

            The time in which we live is also characterized by pervasive and fundamental changes.  Phyllis Tickle calls our time “the Great Emergence.”  She says we live in the latest in a series of major cultural shifts that take place roughly every 500 years.  Her view certainly explains the situation in which we find ourselves culturally.  In our time, the old paradigm has gone, and the new hasn’t yet gelled into a recognizable form.  Our whole culture and world is in transition; these days everything is “interim.”  Change is now our cultural context and we will have to adapt to it in any case. 

            This environment of comprehensive change affects our churches.  For one thing, the shifts we are going through are so profound and pervasive that the old model of the “permanent” minister is less and less operative.  Because we live in a culture of transition, all ministry today is transitional; it necessarily has a temporary, provisional, and “between” or “on the way” quality.  The great value of Interim Ministry is that it has always addressed issues of transition in congregations.  There are therefore many lessons we may learn from Interim Ministry that apply to all ministry in a time of pervasive change.

            At the same time, these changes in church and culture require that we rethink Interim Ministry itself.  Our traditional understanding of Interim Ministry was built on the assumption of a temporary period of transition between two stable states.  The goal of Interim Ministry was to get a congregation through this period of flux and arrive at a time of stability again, with a new Pastor. 

            But that model does not account for either the transformational character of Jesus’ mission, or the pervasive changes affecting our culture generally.  Churches no longer actually settle into any traditionally recognizable, sustainable, stable state.  For the sake of a dynamic ministry in Christ’s name, every new minister needs to be prepared to keep positive change and adaptation happening, no matter how much congregations may crave stability.

            The positive spirit that Interim Ministry brings to the church is its inherently transformational and future orientation.  At its best, Interim Ministry changes a congregation’s focus from past to future, and opens up a congregation to the new things the Spirit is doing, and will continue to do, among them.  Churches will thrive once they lose the assumption that the transition time is temporary, and that stability is the goal. 

            I repeat: all ministry is now “unstable” and transitional.  Maybe we can actually see this time of change as a gift from God that makes us better able to undertake mission in Jesus’ name, for he too was about change.  Instead of being an institution focused on preservation and stability, we seek to anticipate Jesus’ coming commonwealth by living together according to his life and teachings, by the power of the Holy Spirit.  In short, in a time of great change we are better able to understand Jesus as a change-agent; Interim Ministry is the best source we have for managing change in the church. 

            Here are the traditional Interim Tasks, reframed in a way useful to all church leaders in a changing world.

1. Coming to Terms with History.

            According to the standard model of Interim Ministry, the first of the Interim Tasks is “coming to terms with history.”  It is essential for a church in transition to establish its independent identity by evaluating and reconsidering its own past and story. 

            In practice, this often meant a reappreciation of the roots and heritage of a congregation.  It might also have involved reconnecting to standard forms of Presbyterian worship, polity, theology, values, etc.  The church was encouraged to develop a longer view of itself beyond the circumstances of the most recent, now departed, Pastor. 

            In a time of radical transition and change, however, our history is not necessarily a positive thing to get in touch with.  Too many churches are so cognizant of their heritage that they lose sight of the world they are situated in today.  Church becomes an exercise in nostalgia or even grief over some perceived golden age.

            “Coming to terms with history” now demands a more critical look at a church’s past.  The entire history of our churches was in that old historical paradigm that is now gone forever.  Our churches thrived very comfortably in that paradigm; but the question remains as to what value practically any of that history has for us today.  On the one hand, we can find many examples of “what not to do.”  On the other, we may discover examples of ministry that we had disregarded, marginalized, or forgotten, but which have now acquired a new relevance.  We may dust off these stories, and bring them back into our common, active memory.   

            Unless we sever the chain tying us to the dead weight of our past, the church is like the nursing home inmate who still thinks it’s 1956, and has clearer memories of those days than the present faces of his own grandchildren.

2. Discovering a New Identity.

            Along with reviewing the past, it is also essential for a church in transition to have a clear understanding of the present situation.  Thus the second Interim Task had to do with a church’s identity and context. 

            In practice, this task focused most on gathering accurate demographic data.  The church looked at itself and its surroundings in great detail, identifying both congregational gifts and possible target populations.  The idea was to wake a church up to the changed and changing character of its environment.  Realizing that, for instance, it is no longer located in a sleepy, white, middle-class town, circa 1948, but in a bustling multi-ethnic, urban, 21^st century neighborhood, is something many churches need to face.

            As superficially beneficial as this approach may be, it still ignores a more important and primary theological question: “Who are we, and what is God calling us to do, as God’s people in this time and place?”  Ministry now involves drawing people into discernment and conversation about their own callings from God.  Where does our passion as followers of Christ meet the pain of a broken world?  Churches will focus on the needs in the local and global communities, seeking to share in the ways God brings healing and transforming energy into these places.   And they will support and encourage the diverse discipleship of their participants in addressing those needs.

            Since transition is now our general context, churches will want to evaluate their mission continually.  Waiting to do this only when compelled by presbytery after the departure of a Pastor is not the most fruitful approach.  It is not even enough to address these issues intentionally every three or five years.  Today, all Pastors, not just Interims, have to help a congregation to locate, articulate, and activate how they are called to participate in God’s mission in a certain time and place.  Indeed, this is a task for all Christians.  Understanding what God is calling people to be in the present context has to be a daily discipline of discernment.

3. Shifts of Power/Leadership Changes.




            A change in pastoral leadership is what defined a church in transition.  Usually this means significant changes in the non-pastoral leadership in a congregation as well. Therefore, the third Interim Task paid particular attention to developing new leaders in the church.  

            Interims have always known that effective new leaders are open to a future significantly different from what the congregation has been used to.  This is a given in interim work.  There is no room for either the conviction that we can go back to the way it was, or that we need to keep everything the same.  These opinions are a potential minefield that Interims try and neutralize before the arrival of a new Pastor.

            A similar openness to the new informs all ministry today… only now it is, in the first place, a perpetual element of church life.  Congregations have to recognize and empower new leaders all the time.  This grows naturally out of the focus on identifying people’s particular callings.  Once God places something on our hearts, it is imperative that we have the space to turn that calling into a ministry that attracts support and impacts the needy world.  Thus it is the Holy Spirit, not an institutional structure (like a Nominating Committee or a Session) that creates leaders in the church.  

            Secondly, the very character of leadership in the church is flattening and spreading out.  We have always depended on top-down, centralized systems of organization.  But these are being rapidly replaced by organic networks, empowering people to follow their own callings.  Authority is now broadly welling up from God’s Spirit working in people, rather than coming down in a focused stream from a hierarchy/bureaucracy above. 

            This new model of leadership actually takes the priesthood of all believers seriously in ways we never before imagined.  Leadership is no longer for the chosen few.  Training in seeking, finding, and implementing a calling from God is something that engages all God’s people.  The church becomes a place of encouragement and feedback as followers of Jesus implement in the world what God is calling them to do.

4. Rethinking Denominational Linkages.




            Churches with stable leadership sometimes lose their sense of connection to their own denominational structures.  When they go into transition, the denomination sees it as an opportunity to exert its influence and remind the congregation of this relationship. 

            So, the fourth of the traditional Interim Tasks was to reconnect the church to the denominational structure, tradition, and resources, thereby strengthening connections and linkages with the wider church.

            Denominations, especially the old “main-line” ones, are on very shaky ground these days.  Churches sometimes find presbytery and synod irrelevant and even detrimental to their mission.  Too often the denominational structure is a gauntlet of inertia, suspicion, old habits, and entrenched interests that must be navigated by a church requesting support in doing anything innovative, different, or “outside the box” in ministry.

            Presbyteries are learning at least to give lip-service to the idea that they exist to support the mission of local churches.  Increasingly they now have to back up these words with real actions, putting the health, needs, and mission of congregations ahead of the presbytery’s own issues.  Perhaps, in our context of wall-to-wall changes, it would be at least as fruitful to help churches find and develop new networks for effective, transformational, and creative ministry.  Christians now benefit from building links  across denominational lines.

            The new way of seeing this task in terms of all ministry is in the development of a wide array of productive and creative networks, both within and beyond the traditional denominational boundaries.  A Pastor must have the skill and connections within the denomination to shake loose needed resources and assist in changing obsolete and restrictive policies.  In addition, the Pastor must also learn to build ecumenical and even interfaith partnerships for witness and mission.    

             

5. Commitment to a New Future. 


            Transitional ministry is about bringing a congregation through change so it is ready to accept new leadership with enthusiasm.  In traditional interim work, the focus gradually shifts to preparing the congregation to receive the new Pastor. 

            The most beneficial way of looking at this task is to realize that Interim Ministry has an inherent focus on the future.  It is not about the new Pastor so much.  Not only is he/she really temporary, but the non-pastoral leadership of a church will have a more central role.

            Interim Pastors have always felt able to say and do things that permanent Pastors might felt a need to be more circumspect about.  Congregations also give Interims more license, based perhaps on the Interim’s temporary status.  The most effective Interims are able to bring a congregation past this sense of temporariness, and inspire the people to an openness to change that becomes part of the church’s own ongoing identity.  

            The insight that “all ministry is interim ministry” means that even “permanent” Pastors are called to have the orientation towards the future that good Interims have.  In short, all Pastors will want to find the courage to be active change agents, leading the people of God into a new future.  In practice this entails a kind of ruthlessness about ridding ourselves of whatever holds us back from effective mission in Jesus’ name today.  Keeping aware of and connected to these reframed Interim Tasks will help.  

            Finally, it is important to note that these tasks are not five discrete and successive “steps,” so much as aspects of a comprehensive approach to ministry and mission.

             Ministers need to be paying attention to all of them, all of the time.  In short, ministry in a time of radical change has to be a matter of constant adaptation and adjustment.  We rethink our history and context, keep developing internal leadership and external partnerships, and lean ever forward into God’s future, as a matter of daily practice.

            Interim Ministry is where we have developed some tools and ways of thinking that are now showing their value for ministry generally.  Using these approaches, reframed for a changing context, helps the church both navigate through a time of upheaval and confusion, and do so in a way that reflects the transformational mission of Jesus Christ.

                       

            

Fall Polity Conference + Day One.

            Every year the Stated Clerks and Presbytery Executives (by whatever name) of the PCUSA gather with the national staff for a meeting in the fall at a fancy hotel.  Just like real business-people.  (So much for doing what Jesus would do, but I won’t indulge in my habitual screed against having church meetings in luxury hotels.)  In General Assembly years like this one the meeting happens in Louisville, the National Headquarters.

           

Synod Breakfast.

            The Interim Executive of the Synod of the Northeast, Harold Delhagen, invited everyone he could find from the synod to breakfast this morning.  Over a nice buffet (eggs, bacon, potatoes, fruit, pastries, etc.) he talked about how the synod is in the process of reorganizing itself.  Again.  The latest proposal has three main elements: 1.  It is going to a “reduced function” plan, with fewer meetings and less attention to governance.  All current funding of programs gets stopped; passion and interest groups will come for new funding every year.  2.  Presbyteries will be encouraged to work across boundaries in partnerships.  This will be generated by the presbyteries themselves.  3.  Attention will be paid to how we function as presbyteries.  Are we at the optimum sizes and shapes?  He envisions a “convention” of presbyteries to discuss reconfiguration. 

            Harold is convinced we need a “Connectional Leader,” because the amorphous raising up of ministries will not work without a supporting structure.  Or something.  Questions were raised about the need for a synod at all.  And about whether it is wise to make ministry groups reapply for their funding annually.  Is this not destabilizing?  Will they not have to spend inordinate resources just putting together proposals all the time?  Why not have options for longer funding terms, like three years?  And what kind of leadership does all this require... or not?

---

            In the Bible, Jeremiah and Ezekiel warn against Judah making an alliance with Egypt.  The Kings, apparently trying to balance the power of the Babylonian invaders from the north, think that the answer is bringing in Egypt on their side from the south.  Practical politics.

            It didn’t work.  Babylon was too powerful.  Judah’s dalliance with Egypt only made Babylon more angry.  The prophets were right.  Again.

            “Egypt” is a loaded term in the Hebrew Scriptures.  It is the nation from which the Israelite slaves escaped in Exodus.  The law was given at Sinai specifically for the purpose of preventing the new nation from becoming anything like Egypt.  Egypt represented oppression, injustice, exploitation, murder, and genocide.  Making an arrangement with Egypt would have offended the prophets because it was a return to the place of slavery. 

            Now, just as the kings were tempted to ally with Egypt, the church has habitually wanted to ally with the business world.  Make no mistake, under the present economic regime these profit-driven enterprises are not compatible with the teachings of Jesus.  They are about making money, often at the expense of workers and the planet.  They reflect a hierarchical, top-down, command-and-control, lust for gain, maximization of profits mentality that results in oppression and environmental degradation.  They are our “Egypt.”  Our infatuation with these systems and people has never done the church any good. Taking ideas and practices from the business world has been the habit of the church for a couple of generations now, and it has been instrumental in driving us into the death-spiral we now enjoy.

            As with Judah, this fascination with Egypt/business has sent us into a kind of exile.  Like them, we have to get comfortable with life in Babylon.  The most fruitful time in the whole history of the people of God was the decades they spent in Babylon.

Lynn Youngs + “Entrepreneurship and Innovation in the Business World”

            So, with a first presentation with a title like that my guard was up.  Youngs’ talk did not start well, what with defining entrepreneurship in terms of willingness to undertake the risk of building a productive venture “seeking profit as a reward.”  He debunked a list of misconceptions about entrepreneurship.  What I got out of this is the emphasis on growing a team; it’s not a lone-wolf, control-freak, gambler mentality that works.  It’s more about cooperation and building value. 

            The institutional barriers to successful entrepreneurs include complacency, fear of failure, budgetary limitations, forgone conclusions, and concentrating on ideas without attention to execution.  Some of this I can relate to.  If we broaden the definition of an entrepreneur to include anyone trying to innovate, experiment, or undertake a new “outside-the-box” initiative, Young’s talk begins to make sense.

            He says we, the denomination, should support an entrepreneurial culture by: breaking “silos” and unleashing multi-disciplinary thinking, identifying and fostering talent by giving people who are getting things done the resources they need, creating a trusting environment that tolerates failure….  Youngs spent a lot of time talking about failure and its benefits.  Failure is the pathway to success… unless it happens too often, in which case it is simply incompetence.  (How to discern beneficial from chronic failures was not addressed.)  “If you want to succeed, double your failure rate.”  Finally, there has to be a continual assessment of progress.

            All this is very well.  But our denomination is characteristically strait-jacketed by a mania for “accountability” and other concerns, revealing an endemic lack of trust within the system, which keeps resources locked up and doesn’t tolerate failure at all.  Heck, we don’t even tolerate success, if it threatens some sacred cow!    

            Are we creating an environment? Youngs asks, or are we overly focused on outcomes?

            The most valuable aspect of Youngs’ talk was his characteristics of a successful entrepreneur: 1.  “Marry a June bride.”  This didn’t make any sense to me until it was unpacked as meaning finding someone with whom you can share the risk.  2.  “Think small.”  In other words, focus on the next step, don’t be distracted by the big picture.  3.  “Be a thief.”  Don’t be afraid to appropriate best practices, wherever you find them.  4.  “Take a vow of poverty.”  Invest fully in the project.  5.  “Become an orphan.”  Don’t let organizations hold you down.  6.  “Swallow your pride.”  Find a mentor.  And, 7.  “Be generous with the spoils of success.”  Share the gains with your team.

            These are somewhat helpful.  However, as one person at our table pointed out, the life of the church is supposed to be all about discipleship.  Following Jesus is the point.  The questions we were asked to reflect on at our tables had to do with defining success, parallels between the business world and the church, traits of church entrepreneurs, and what we can do to create an entrepreneurial environment.  Many tables appeared not to have advanced beyond the success question, and that is significant.  We are slow to understand what success means for us.  Success is not what our problem is.  Discipleship is.  I wonder if we trust Jesus enough to follow him.  And that’s the whole ballgame. 

            The parallels with the business world were summed up in Val Fowler’s comment that members of churches are not our “customers;” they are our “sales staff.”  When we treat them like the ones we are supposed to be serving, we are finished.  Our “customers” are out in the world.  (I don’t like this language at all.)

            I would hope that the main, if not the only, trait of the entrepreneur in the church is whether they are a disciple of Jesus.  As someone at my table summarized it, “It starts with submission.”  That is, trusting and obeying Jesus are everything.

Gradye Parsons.

            One theme here is the distinction between “do it yourself” and “do it together.”  Parsons pointed out that each of these has gifts… but we have a covenanted life in the church.  We are in this together.  We take the covenant and its promises seriously.  The church is a community of faith, hope, love, and witness.  The CORE of our life together includes Covenant, Ordered ministry, Resources, and Equipping the saints.  Ordered ministry is both accountable and available.  Christ give us all the resources we need for our ministry.  To equip the saints, we have to move beyond a sense of duty; people need to be energized about the church.

Jill Hudson.

            Jill Hudson talked about the Mid-council Commission II, authorized by the General Assembly last summer.  She reviewed the “Colors of Vitality” document, pointing out some principles that should guide councils as they restructure for the future.  One size does not fit all, and simply adopting someone else’s structure doesn’t work.  Councils have to take the time to determine their own focus – the guiding theme of their life together.  Also important are the other “building blocks:” examining context and size, culture and function, structure, leadership, and financial viability.  Support for congregations is essential. 

            The emphasis in both these talks was on community, connectionalism, and the support of the larger body for local ministries.  This is not a new theme, but something that has had to be hammered into leaders for years.  The idea that higher councils exist to support local churches is a reversal of how we acted for years.  Back then, under an unabashedly corporate model, it was understood that local churches were supposed to support the ministries of presbyteries, presbyteries that of synods, and everybody the work of the national denomination.  The necessary reversal of polarity, akin to trying to change the direction of a river’s flow, has taken decades.

            With all this attention now on local churches and our covenantal relationships, it remains to be seen whether this is not too little too late.  How many healthy congregations will we have left to receive our attention?

Linda Valentine.

            The Executive Director of the newly renamed Presbyterian Mission Agency gave basically a pep talk about several initiatives.  The most important of these, for this discussion, is the 1001 New Worshiping Communities program.  The answer to a lot of this inertia and decay at the congregational level is… new worshiping communities. 

            Notice that we do not refer to “new congregations.”  Many of these worshiping communities will be congregations. But not all.  What constitutes a worshiping community remains unclear.  However, this opens up the possibilities to include a lot of initiatives that might not look like standard congregations.  This is a good thing.  The future may very well be with worshiping communities that look and act in new – or actually very old – ways.  (Remember that the Christian church did not own property until like the 4^th century.)

            Will we loosen up resources, and our rules and regulations, and our sense of turf, power, and “accountability” enough to let 1001 new worshiping communities happen?  We’ll see.  The last half-century is littered with failed denominational initiatives in evangelism and church growth and redevelopment.  I do have hope for this one, though.  We may have finally achieved a critical mass of people who get it.  Let’s hope so.

       

                

Why Fellowships?

It has been the practice in many presbyteries to institute an interim period where a new worshiping community is listed as a “fellowship” for a period of time before being officially chartered as a full-fledged congregation.  The Book of Order does not require this, nor even mention the possibility.  Maybe it was, or even still is, the advice of some New Church Development handbook.  Or maybe presbyteries came up with it on their own.

On the surface it seems to make prudent sense.  Start a congregation off with the training wheels of presbytery oversight until they meet certain minimum standards and can take care of themselves.  Then bring them in when they are ready.

Unfortunately, if this provisional period stretches out too long, and the requirements for chartering are too unrealistic, groups can stay in fellowship status for a long time.  Decades, even.

 

Fellowships have several drawbacks.  First, it is under the watchful eye of the presbytery.  In theory this is supposed to be a good thing.  The fellowship would benefit from the wisdom of the larger body, and receive guidance and support.  In reality, though, it can also mean the the fellowship is subject to the various phobias, agendas, competencies/incompetencies, politics, personalities, and so forth, that swirl at the presbytery level.  If the fellowship is being funded by the presbytery, the toxicity of this oversight may be compounded.  Money changes everything, usually not for the better.  Funded fellowships may have to be constantly defending themselves, and be subject to arbitrary quantitative criteria for “sustainability,” or whatever.  It may mean that fellowship leadership have to add to their skill-set the schmoozing of presbyters, like forming a new church isn't difficult enough. 

 

Second, the participants in a fellowship are not technically considered members of a local church.  They are not counted in the statistics, they may not be ordained, and they are not represented at presbytery.  In other words, they are second- or third-class citizens with no power over their own future.  This leaves them subject to other’s power in ways that may undercut their own vision and diminish their missional effectiveness.

Many presbyteries have horror stories of malignant interference in the life of a fellowship under its care.  Fellowships have to navigate a mine-field of expectations on the part of  steering committee members, spending valuable time and energy placating the sentimentality, nostalgia, or fear of competition on the part of people selected to serve, or presbytery leaders.  Many of these folks may have no clue about what it takes to plant and grow a new church, but may desire mainly to bask in the glory of a success in an area in which Presbyterians have been chronically deficient.  (One presbytery assigned the planting of a new church to the same Administrative Commission that closed a former church.  This is like having a funeral director as your midwife.)  When a fellowship fails, it can discourage a presbytery from trying another one any time soon, which is just fine with many because then there is more money and energy to continue to drain into life support for continuing, and failing, congregations.

Plus, it is not uncommon for a new worshiping community to be made up of immigrants and members of various ethnic, generational, theological, or sexual communities that are not the traditional Presbyterian European majority.  Relegating these folks to extended status as participants in a second-class fellowship disenfranchises them, robbing the presbytery of their gifts, restricting their ministry, and putting the worshiping community itself at risk.  Hindering the development of new worshiping communities like this only calcifies the generational and ethnic homogeneity that is dooming us in an America that is becoming more diverse by the day. 

For there are some not-so-good, and probably unconscious, reasons why presbyteries establish the fellowship stage:  

1) They want to retain control, ensuring that the fellowship is not a threat to the status quo of the presbytery.  When money is involved this falls under the notorious “responsible stewardship” argument, whereby the presbytery supports only the most safe and conventional kinds of ministries.  

2)  There may be unacknowledged racism that assumes that people of minority groups need special care and “nurturing” before they can be trusted to establish a congregation that is recognizably one of “ours.”  

3)  Presbyteries, especially in the present context of general shrinkage, fear change, are suspicious of new people, don’t want the balance of power upset, and suspect that the new worshiping community will "become a burden on the presbytery" if chartered too quickly. 

People in fellowships must feel all this paranoia, suspicion, and caution.  I can’t imagine that it helps either the fellowship’s growth or its relationship with the presbytery.

What if we had a more fluid and flexible approach to planting churches and new worshiping communities?  What if we let groups form, dissolve, and reform more organically, chartering them as soon as they meet some low minimum membership number, like a single cell of 7 to 12 people willing to sign on to the responsibilities membership listed in G-1.0304?  This would give them representation at presbytery and a voice in their own ministry and future.  There would be no requirements for money, staffing, or property-ownership, and no demand to show a credible path and timeline to “sustainability”.

Look: changing existing congregations so they are more inclusive and diverse is very difficult.  The road ahead will feature more new worshiping communities.  We have to make it easier to form and support these groups, and incorporate them much quicker into presbyteries, where they can have influence to see that more new groups are planted.  It is part of the shift to a “belonging-to-believing” mindset, replacing the obsolete approach that required high standards of belief prior to being fully accepted.  

Ditching, or at least severely limiting, the “fellowship” stage is one way to move in this direction.

+++++++