Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
There is a cause-effect assumption in Warren’s observation. It could just as easily be that successful, healthy situations result in longer term pastorates because everyone is happy, not that the congregation is healthy and successful because of the longer term pastorates.Long, long experience and observation, especially in handling interims and handling. Conflicts have led me to believe that extended pastorates are a bad idea. Ten years, 15 years maybe, but when you get into the 20 and 25 year pastorates, Not even to mention the ones that may run for 30 or 35 years, there are problems.
Often that can be handled by an intentional interim, who stays for two or three years to make the needed transition. But the interim needs to be strong and forceful and key congregational leadership and synod leaders have to be supportive. I did one that failed and one that succeeded, and the failure was because key congregational leadership only pretended to be on board with the transition.
30 year pastorates might bring some glory and love to the pastor, but they seem to leave problems for the congregation.
On the other hand, I saw one long-term pastor lose his reputation because five years before retirement he locked everything down the way he wanted and resisted any kind of change, coasting to retirement and ruining his relationship with the congregation who was actually glad to see him leave.
Conversely, one thing that Rick Warren discovered before even starting his congregation, that all of the large congregations he studied had long-term pastorates. Changing pastors every 10 years will not result in long-term growth. Along the same lines, I remember reading an article or book by Robert Schuller who talked about making 40 year goals for the congregation. The expectation is that the pastor will still be there after 40 years.
Granted, the down-side of this is that when the long-term pastor leaves, all the people who joined (because of the pastor) may also leave. Robert Schuller's ministry virtually disappeared after he left. His Chrystal Cathedral was bought the the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange. It's now called "Christ Cathedral." What was once one of the largest ELCA congregations, Community Church of Joy, no longer exists as a Lutheran congregation. They were bought by an even larger Assembly of God congregation.
I think that a question congregations need to consider: "What can we do to keep this pastor and the ministry vital over the next 40-50 years?" I don't think that congregations often think about long-term goals and ministries. They often live from month-to-month; and look at the whole year only at budget time. What about planning five-year and ten-year budgets (that could be going up or down depending on what the circumstances are)?
Peter:A: If anyone is impacted negatively by my behavior, then they can talk to me civilly or alert the authorities. Maybe I have put a lot of consideration into their views and decided that they are wrong. My failure to behave the way they think I should behave is not proof I have ignored them. And if I have ignored them, unless I’ve done something against the law, so be it, they’ll just have to go about their business without my attention. And if their business involves violence, justice demands that law enforcement protect me from them.
People do not have a right to my attention.
Me:
Actually, I think they sort of do. We live in a communal society, and if what you believe and say and do is impacting them negatively, they have a right to bring that to your attention, and you have the obligation to listen to them.
Peter:
If I ignore them, that doesn’t give them the right to break things so that I’ll pay attention to them.
Me:
No, it doesn’t. But the point is that not everything is right or wrong, lawful or unlawful. And sometimes those categories need to be bent or even broken. Otherwise we wouldn’t even have a country like ours.
Peter:
That is the kind of thinking that leads to violent conflict.
Me:
And yours is the kind of quietism or hyper-obedience that also leads to some rather terrible things.
By the way, it seems that it is the followers of your guy who are most prone to violence these days.
Peter writes:I am not any such example. But if I were, so what? People do not have a right to my attention. If I ignore them, that doesn’t give them the right to break things so that I’ll pay attention to them. That is the kind of thinking that leads to violent conflict.
If you fail to reject Antifa, the destruction of property done by BLM, the nonsense in Portland and Seattle, and even the antics of college students to shut down speakers they don’t like, then you are an enemy of civil discourse and a de facto advocate for chaos and eventual open warfare.
I comment:
Well, I guess that settles it. Always glad to have your final judgment, Peter.
Let’s see if Pastor Fienen has the same reaction to your judgemental statement as he does to my, by comparison, rather mild criticisms of certain political and social factions.
And you may be an example of the kind of person who doesn’t pay any attention to an issue until some people break things.
Peter, I do not advocate “throwing out the rules.” I’m not talking about the rules. I’m talking about the people with whom we interact.You are in fact talking about throwing out the (informal) rules of civil discourse when you do not condemn those who routinely break them. If someone being hectored in the bathroom feels threatened and responds with pepper spray, everything breaks down. If you fail to reject Antifa, the destruction of property done by BLM, the nonsense in Portland and Seattle, and even the antics of college students to shut down speakers they don’t like, then you are an enemy of civil discourse and a de facto advocate for chaos and eventual open warfare.
It is focusing on the rules, and who obeys them best, and who best exemplifies the reasons for the rules that leads to tyranny.
Yes, it’s like a gutsy play call. If it works, the coach is a genius. If not, what the bleep was he thinking? I’ve always had good success in team ministry. After my MAL experience I was an associate for a few years and have been senior pastor of two larger, multi-staff churches for the last twenty years, and never had a bad working relationship with staff or emeritus guys. But I know many people for whom the blessing of team ministry was very well hidden indeed behind character-building train wreck experiences. So I know I have been blessed in that regard.I think the kind of fatigue that affects many of us who grew up with the old expectations of what church and society were and now find ourselves in a world where everything has changed is not physical or mental in the regular sense of doing exercise or figuring out a brain teaser. It is the unavoidable fatigue of being responsible for something that isn't working and not knowing what to do about that. Part of may be perception. I remember a pastor friend whose church really grew in the twenty-something and thirty-something crowds said one key to his success with them is that he grew up an atheist and was a convert to Christianity, so he had no built-in vision of what things were supposed to be like. For example, younger people don't come to church every week, they come every now and then. To him there was nothing particularly abnormal about that, but other pastors would tear out their hair trying to figure it. Naturally he encouraged regular attendance, but the lack of it didn't drain him.
That's why I think a model that might work in the future is having the "senior" pastor actually be the junior pastor and having the more experienced pastor serve as a sounding board. What saps the energies of an older pastor doesn't necessarily phase a younger pastor, and most of the areas of ministry affected by that are in the decision-making and administrative side of things. If you're a stranger in a strange land, get help from the locals on logistical/organizational things, and the young people are native to this new world.
That's a good suggestion at the same time it's a recipe for disaster. The right #2 and #1 guy, sure. The usual #2 and #1 guy and the former #2 does not want a sounding board, or the former #1 wants the sounding board to be the seal of approval for what he the #1 would want to do; the other ingredient is the people in the pew, who either wanted or didn't want the new arrangement and either will still go to the former #1 or will tell the new #1 they never liked the old guy and not to take any advice he gives.
That being said, people are a little more able to work this through these days because there are less viable options out in the field - in other words, the grass is not actually looking greener in the other pasture, it's more like some kind of mold or fungus over there and we don't want to catch it.
Dave Benke
No. I do not “defend” yelling at people as they deal with generally private bodily functions. I thought I said that.I also understand why it is done, and can support anyone's commitment, passion and intentions if we understand those intentions in their terms. That is true of most people who do things that are clearly wrong and worthy of being condemned. Your refusal to call out the perpetrator is what is relevant here. If I were the yeller, I would consider you an ally and feel supported, not confronted, by your words.
But I do understand why it is done, and can Support the yeller’s commitment, passion and intentions.
Peter:True. Hence the conflict. Some want to tear them down. Some want to preserve them. Almost every disagreement on cultural issues depends on whether you think America is a flawed but essentially a force for good, and so in need of repairs here and there to maintain and preserve its essence, or whether you think America is and has been essentially a regrettable force for oppression.
Preserve…and structures of society that have served the nation well…
Me:
In the mind of many, Peter, not everyone in their society has been so well served by those cultures and structures. Some have even been harmed.
