The Backwash

There are those churches that seem to clip along at a nice pace.  They grow, they seem strong, and 10 or 15 years later they seem to crash and burn.  Often, we wonder what happened.  We use words like “split” or “disagreements.”  We wonder who got mad over what, who left and why.

I would submit that our typical reasoning is not always the case.  Sure, there are plenty of times when members disagree – otherwise they would not be human.  Disagreement and learning to love through it is part of what makes church such an interesting dynamic.  Forget worship styles, discussions of where to spend money, mission efforts to support or not support or any other splinter of record.  Today I want to position two thoughts outside of our typical understanding in an attempt to create more dynamic, adaptive and relevant churches.

ITEM ONE:  ELDERS SHOULD HAVE TERM LIMITS

Show me the scripture that defines the role of Elder as a lifelong appointment, and I’ll show you the scripture that says “never use an instrument in worship.”  Neither exist.

The lifetime appointment of Elders, I submit, has done more harm than good.  Too many churches end up with a host of power-brokers rather than shepherds.  Too many good men have not had the spiritual cahoonas to bow out, or have suffered from a myopia that blinds them to the wisdom of when they should step down.  And, if one does step down, it is not seen as natural.  It starts the undercurrent – “wonder what is going on?”  or “is it his health?”  or “he must disagree with something.  We put a lot of good men in a very bad situation when we appoint them as an elder and seemingly say “see you at your funeral.”  So what is the fix?

First, under no circumstance should someone not meeting scriptural qualifications be ordained as an Elder (Yes…I said “ordained” and not our created word of “installed.”  Deal with it.)  When someone is found qualified, and if they meet whatever muster the congregation puts out (isn’t it funny how much outside-of-scripture process we put in place for this part), then they should be an Elder….for five years.  After that?  Sabbatical.  Head back to other work.  How invaluable would it be to have an elder who has served well re-immerse themselves into the work of that congregation, and have it feel normal?  How healthy would it be for a congregation to be able to tell an Elder that their service is so valued, they will get a break?

I have known many great men who have been fantastic shepherds; and almost all of them have burned-out.  Why do this to them?  Why put that much pressure on them and their families?  It is hard work if done correctly – and any Elder who serves well should be worthy of not just double honor, but also a break.  Sure, they should be able to serve again in a few years, but there should be a limit.  This provides a natural progression for the leadership of the congregation to always reflect the cadence of what is going on.  I submit that any Eldership and congregation would benefit from such a radical departure from what has always been….at least what has always been from the 1930’s until now.

ITEM TWO:  TERM LIMITS FOR PREACHERS

This one will get several people stirred, but let me share my reasons.  First, I have been in the situations where a 20-plus year preacher decides to leave.  It is horrible – even if it is well past time for that person to be gone.  This is one of the most precipitating factors in a lot of church splits or church distress.  Churches that experience the departure of a long-time preacher typically go through the following pattern:

• Members wonder “what will we do?”
• A segment (appx. 10-15%) will not be happy with any replacement
• Approximately 5% of the members will leave if there are alternative congregations
• An average of two preachers will come and either be chased off or leave of their own accord before a preacher that will be there a while will land.  Body count – at least two preacher families and the few in that congregation that tried to make it work
• By choice number two, Elderships will start to make uninformed decisions regarding the “next guy”
• The church loses about 5-7 years of effectiveness, membership stagnates or declines, and wounds that will always be sore are formed between some members.

For the preacher, this approach does a few things:

• Preachers burn out, too.  Some churches have taken to giving their preacher a sabbatical to avoid this, but that approach typically just delays the burnout.
• No preacher, no matter how good, is at the top of his game every week – especially at a congregation with multiple services.
• “Preacher Atrophy” is very real.  How many of us hoped we would have the same teacher for 10+ years of our school life?  Apply that principle here.

My suggestion for churches is simple – inform the preacher going in that they have 5-7 years.  The reasons are for the good of the congregation.  First, the preacher does not have to be run out of town – they can move to another area of work.  Second, Elders (who are supposed to be able to teach, anyway) should be REQUIRED to preach at least once a year.  Third, churches should make more use of those in their congregations who can preach, anyway.  I find it comical that most churches simply will not utilize talent that sits in the pews for preaching.  Oh, I know all the arguments…including  that tired old “we need consistency in the pulpit.”  Let’s just call it what it is – too many Elderships are scared of what someone will say.

Please don’t hear what I am not saying.  I am NOT saying that preachers or Elders have no value.  On the contrary, I think we diminish their value by continuing to push these guys into pressure situations with no relief valve.  Plus, everything I am positioning here is just as scriptural as what we do today.  Just think about it.  We set-up our leadership to burn out and our preachers to fail.  Is it any wonder so many congregations see crises?

-MH