A fellow coach and I talked about interim ministry recently. She’s coaching a gentleman who is doing interim ministry (he’s on his fourth one). They are both trying to approach the issue through “Bowen Family Systems Lenses,” and therefore are having to re-frame the issue of the function of the interim pastor in the congregational setting.
I think my friend addressed appropriately some of the key points involved in the issue. Smart woman that she is, all she needed from me was a nod that she was thinking in the right direction. At heart was her unease with the interim pastor’s practice of leading congregations through a “visioning process” that included setting goals and initiatives for the future. She speculated that it made more sense to her that a more beneficial role would be to help the congregation “do some self reflection on its history and leave the actually future casting and dreaming for the next pastor who would hopefully be there for a while.”
I concurred with her intuitive position about interim pastoral ministry taking on a different function, from a BFST stance, than I’ve typically seen done. I’ve come to the conclusion that even the “intentional interim” process is a good idea, and well-intentioned, but probably misguided. Given that interim periods are times of high (acute) anxiety for congregations, it seems to me that (1) there is not much the interim can do by way of emotional process if the congregation is conflicted—that is, the congregation in that state has an inability to “learn” or “reflect”; (2) from what I’ve seen of the people who do this kind of thing, (a) most don’t think systems and can’t FUNCTION in systemically helpful ways, and (b) most seem to not have resolved their own personal ministry issues. (To be blunt, most of the ones I’ve come across have not been impressive performers–I can think of only ONE who “gets it”, but who still works VERY hard at not getting hooked by the churches she serves in the interim capacity).
Some of the key “systems” issues are:
1. Willfulness on the part of the congregation when it decides that it’s going to tell the next pastor what to do, or, on the other side of the coin, dependency (underfunctioning in the identity or will department), “Let’s wait for the next pastor to tell us what to do.”
But I think that IF the interim period can facilitate clarity and non-reactive processing of identity and vision, then I think it is VERY appropriate for the church members to get clarity about WHO they are and WHAT they are called to do, and engage in conversations around calling related to those factors when dealing with candidates.
The actual willfull posture I tend to see, though, has consistently been on the part of the interim pastor who for some reason, seems to want to insist on the church adopting his or her ideas about church structure, programs, staff, ministry, and about the kind of pastor the church should next call. Given the dependent posture most churches adopt–often because they are “stuck” and welcome anything that feels like movement—they tend to uncritically and un-theologically accept whatever the interim offers by way of “solutions.” I’ve seen this too often.
2. Many interim training programs currently in existence seem to pay very little attention to process and the emotional system, and are too much designed toward checking things off of a list in a particular order. This seems to me to be a fundamental problem. Lists are a good idea, generally, (hey, I’m the guy who wrote a book of lists) but the implementation suffers often if the interims cannot “think process.” They come in with “the program” or “the kit” and do PROCEDURE while missing PROCESS. It’s a very task-oriented program they come with. And for an anxious, stuck congregation the busy work of checking things off the list can feel like accomplishing something, when in fact, it’s not.
3. Many churches get confused and get to a point of seeing the interim as the potential new pastor, violating all kinds of rules and boundaries that are usually in place about the inappropriateness of that possibility. But I have also seen cases where the interim does not help the situation because he or she gets confused about the relationship with the congregation. Seduction feels good, and most interims haven’t been there long enough to be disliked. I’ve seen this twice. Despite what the “contract” says, the interims got confused, dropped hints, and the congregation got confused. In one congregation the leadership team actually went to the interim and, as a group, said in no uncertain terms, “You will NOT be the next pastor of this church.” That helped get the interim focused again and got the other groups in the congregation back on track about the job of seeking and calling the next pastor.
I’m always intrigued at people’s lack of a sense of “conflict of interests” and boundaries. I once served on a search committee where one of the applicants put the name of a member of the search committee as a reference (the candidate had asked permission of the committee member, who said it was o.k.). I raised the issue in the group saying I thought that was a bad idea. Several had trouble understanding why it was inappropriate. I said it was a conflict of interest, and they asked, “How so?” At that point I was a little dumbfounded. I had to explain that what was wrong with it was (motives aside, “Never question motives”): (1) the candidate was asking for an inside advantage (and how would other candidates who were not chosen feel if they’d learned that this candidate had done so? We may not question motives, but others will), and, (2) the committee member has a conflict of interest because his or her job is to seek the best candidate for the job, not advocate for one in particular as a reference. I mentioned that the committee member could still advocate and endorse the applicant, but not as a reference. Given what we know about group dynamics a person “within” the group can sway opinion (typically of the weakest and most dependent members in the group) in unconscious ways. Or in this case, make it difficult to challenge and speak bluntly about any shortcomings of that particular candidate knowing that there’s a “friend” in the room.
4. My coach friend identified the frequent situation when there is poor transitioning for the church or the pastor. If the “new boyfriend” (interim) never really gets to see what the community is all about in the relatively short time that was taken up “visioning” and strategizing, it can potentially set up the next pastor who comes with unrealistic directives established during the interim that were based on untruths and misperceptions. I agreed. And not understanding process, one cannot begin to address that. And even if a person CAN begin to address that, what we are talking about here is the power of homeostasis and possibly multigenerational transmission. In which case, good luck with that. And let’s not forget the key interlocking triangles in place: the congregation—its history and baggage—-the boyfriend (interim)—and future match (the next pastor).
I will tell you what I think may be the most effective thing an interim can do for a congregation: preach about the Church, and teach the church to think theologically about what it means to be Church. What this does is inculcate, to some extent, a capacity for discernment for the congregation about what Church is and therefore what (theological) questions to ask the pastoral candidates. The rest is maintenance. If the interim can do JUST that and ONLY that, he or she will give the congregational members the most powerful and necessary tool they will need to deal with issues of identity, mission, purpose, and about what kind of church they want to be—and therefore, what kind of pastor they need to call.
<%image(20070217-IGmatrix200.jpg|200|151|From inside the Matrix)%>
