The Author
Anthony Robinson is an ordained United Church of Christ pastor who currently serves as President of Congregational Leadership Northwest. He travels throughout North America as a speaker, teacher, preacher, consultant and coach serving congregations and their leaders. Robinson has taught at several schools including Toronto School of Theology, Seattle Pacific University, Seattle University, and Vancouver School of Theology. He is the author of nine books, including Changing the Conversation: A Third Way for Congregations (2008, which I reviewed). Additionally, Robinson is a frequent contributor to various periodicals including The Christian Century, Congregations, and Perspectives.
The Idea
Robinson recently wrote a piece for the Call and Response blog, which is provided by Faith and Leadership at Duke University. In this January article he suggests that the interim ministry model popularized in the 1980s is fading in favor of pastoral succession. He offers three reasons why interim ministry is no longer as effective of a methodology for transition as it once was:
- First, churches today find themselves in a much more competitive environment. Many cannot afford an extended period of being “on hold” during which time both continuity and momentum are lost.
- A second reason is that congregations are discovering that the talent pool for pastoral leaders is an increasingly shallow one. The standard denominational system for providing leaders is unreliable. The intentional interim ministry model assumed a denominational system was relatively stable . . . Fewer congregations today can withstand such extended periods without clarity and direction.
- A third reason is the quality of those doing this specialized transitional ministry. While some transitional ministers are exactly what a congregation needs, some are people who have gravitated to transitional ministry because they haven’t been successful as pastors and have found a way to mask mediocrity with the mantel of the specialist or expert.
So what?
Robinson points out many weaknesses in the interim ministry model, especially for mainline congregations. He also makes a case for the pastoral succession model:
The pastoral succession model is a more proactive one, in which congregations actively seek out the right leadership without leaving themselves wholly dependent on the usual denominational placement system. Moreover, they have the help of the incumbent, with that person’s connections and network, in doing that work.
. . . It seems to work particularly well for larger churches that depend heavily on the quality of pastoral leadership. It works well when the outgoing pastor is ending their career. It works well when that person gives his or her blessing to their successor and then gets off the stage. It works well when a congregation has the capacity to start doing the serious work of asking what kind of leadership is needed for the next chapter of its life two years before the incumbent exits instead of waiting until a year after that person is gone.
Which model do you feel is better suited for most mainline congregations in the early 21st century? Why?