I agree that the clergy deployment process needs improvement. But as a three-term senior warden and a two-term convocation warden who has seen many deployment scenarios, I disagree strongly with your assertion that the deployment process causes decline in the church and specifically with your assertion that outgoing rectors know best. It's just not so.

I couldn't agree more.

I have seen one parish nearly destroyed by an interim rector who took it upon himself to "delve into every system that exists in the church to expose its faults and fix them; to remove persons in charge of ministries; to challenge the way “things have always been done.” In that case, it took FOUR YEARS to get a new, full-time rector.

I have watched another parish flounder badly when the rector was incapacitated, and it took 3 years to get a new one. The parish lost a lot of long-time members when the bishop sent an interim who seemed to go out of her way to offend people.

It is ridiculous that it takes an average of 18 months--2 years to get a new rector in place. Other denominations have the new minister coming in the front door as the old one exits out the back--and they seem to do just fine. We should take note.

I would add to this two more considerations: 1) dioc deployment officers who are unable to think outside of their own agendas or biases; even some who are corrupted by their "power over" the process, 2) the complication of following rectors who were/are abusive.

I find it fascinating that Chuck Till and I are members of the same parish and have such COMPLETELY different viewpoints on this!

I really don't see the harm in having the outgoing rector offer hir observations to the search committee. It's not as if anyone is proposing to allow the outgoing rector to choose or vote on hir successor.

I don't speak as someone with 20+ years of parochial experience but I do have experience in change management consulting and 15+ years in the military. My experience in USAF Change of Command processes is that the ceremony is often scripted and does not tell the whole story. Moreover the military's change of command often comes because a "higher up" is dissatisfied with the outgoing leader's performance. There may or may not be a conversation between the outgoing and incoming leaders about the unit's well-being. In many cases, a senior commander desires to promote a junior commander they have been mentoring. Nepotism remains alive and well. I have certainly been in military units when and where the incoming commander's first duty is to shake things up and place "his" (most military commanders are still men) mark and rank on the unit without any sense of what is or is not working. This sort of behavior may take place in parishes too.

The reality is that an outgoing rector or commander may be the person who knows the most about the organization/church. That may or may not be a good thing and it may or may not be necessary for a church/organization to undergo some sort of transitional period, especially if there are matters requiring direct attention or transformation.

I concur that our present deployment process is often too lengthy. My sense of interim ("unfreezing") processes is that it's nonetheless not necessarily a bad idea for someone, (outsider) who is skilled and properly trained, to gaze upon congregational systems and encourage/promote opportunities for growth and reformation. [I readily admit I am biased because of my consulting background.] An interim who is well-trained in appreciative inquiry who is also a gracious and mindful pastor can be very helpful in guiding congregations from one part of the pilgrimage to the next along The Way. I certainly believe that individuals and congregations can often be too hasty in making very important decisions, especially in a society such as ours that values rapidly moving on from one thing to next. There are perspectives within a Johari Window when and where it's a necessity for a skilled person, incoming priest, outgoing priest, consultant, whoever, to inform one another of things they don't know about themselves that others know. Conversely, our bishops and congregational leaders should encourage search committees, diocesan staffs, and interim advisers to be prudently efficient.

In an Anglican sense, "it depends" - context means a great deal. Jim Strader

For those unfamiliar with Johari window - go here.
A good way for the knowledge of the outgoing rector/vicar to be tapped is for the search committee/vestry to do an exit interview. The information can be added to the mix of others' ideas of how the church works or doesn't. Strengths and challenges, areas of opportunity, minefields, etc.

Some excellent, well-thought points, Donald - thank you.

I too am Rector of my 4th church, over 27 years of ordained ministry. I have followed 2 excellent interims, and 2 that were wretched. So consistency is an issue for us as a Church. And as I speak with folks in other traditions, the ones that go directly from pastor to pastor (especially RC & Methodist), there is a longing for a time between. Otherwise a congregation never does any sort of self-assessment. We need something more than the one-size-fits-all model of interim ministry, but we do have something important in the concept.

The discomfort I feel after reading this article, though, is with the clericalism assumed. As a Church we're still trying to find that golden mean between congregationalism & hierarchicalism. The question, from my perspective, is, "How can we strengthen our congregations for future changes?" In my day-to-day ministry I try to run my decisions through the filter of, "How will this best equip these people for the future?" This takes the form of raising up, preparing & praising leaders in the congregation; keeping records that will best assist the next rector; and keeping my ego in check. Perhaps the hardest is letting leaders lead! Every time I don't, I feed the "Father knows best" mentality that is still too prevalent in our tradition.

I've observed that those pastorates that are the most personality-based leave behind congregations that have the most difficulty with transitions. I'm two years into my current call and not looking to move. But I constantly keep in mind my successor. And more importantly, the ongoing ministries of this faith community.

Rob Lundquist

I think in the Reform synagogues the exiting rabbi actually stays receive treatment of emeritus and is given an office, it will be interesting to examine what our Jewish friends are doing about it

Juantoronto - thanks for commenting - please sign your name next time. ~ed.

I do think that many of these types of changes are already on the way in some places. Greater flexibility is a must. I'm starting a new call in a few weeks, and I did report fully about the state of the parish at the annual meeting, which unfortunately was before the announcement. Our transition ministry officer will present the vestry with a range of options and I'd be surprised if all of them involved a long term interim or perhaps any interim at all. I have my suspicions about how calling a priest in charge with option to become incumbent

Might be abused in some places. But it seems like a good tool in the kit to address some of these concerns. I do wonder about the more far reaching claim that this may be contributing to overall decline. I doubt it's a significant factor.

The last 3 interim pastors with which I have experience have all proudly stated that their training told them that their job was to "shake things up." Three interims in less than 10 years left us more shaken than James Bond's martini. I suggest that the interim take some time to become familiar with the parish. If there's been one rector for 30 years, then perhaps shaking things up is appropriate. But a more nuanced approach might be to get to know the parishioners and to support those programs that are working (even the most dysfunctional church has something that works or no one would come) and to try to revive programs that the previous rector ignored or actively opposed.

I have served on a search committee, but probably would not do so again. Early in the process we were told to "trust the process" and not to try to short-circuit things by calling someone we knew. Within weeks, we were being pressured to accept someone the "diocese really wants."
As a small parish, we wanted to explore a yoked parish arrangement, but were told the "diocese really doesn't like this." We could never discover who was the author of these diocesan proclamations.

Finally, the match process with the Church Deployment Office was amusing at best. We clearly identified ourselves in the parish profile as a developing parish. We received several resumes from the CDO of priests who said they were hoping to be dean of a cathedral. If this were a dating service, I'd want my money back.

I have taken Interim Ministry training - the best thing I got from it was how systems work. The worst thing is this attitude that the interim is supposed to come in and shake things up and re-do all the leadership patterns. I don't know how one can do that to a church even a somewhat dysfunctional one. One has to establish trust to suggest changes IMO. A better approach is to find out what IS working and build on that (the Appreciative Inquiry approach). Discover what people want to do better and what is not working for them. Encourage people to take ownership of their future. Be a cheer leader and affirm their strengths. Try to stay non-anxious - listen, listen listen. Help people to build on a vision for their future.

As a former vestryperson and rector search committee member at my parish, I am thrilled to see this cogent, thoughtfully posited essay and the (thank God I am an Episcopalian) numerous smart responses to it. In our (Massachusetts) Diocese and possibly others, a reflection of how messed-up this system has become is how many priests-in-charge are being appointed by bishops in consultation with vestries, even at larger, relatively thriving Episcopal parishes. One clear upside to the PiC model is that a bishop and a vestry in a healthy communication are going to be able to get new rectoral leadership in a matter of weeks, rather than months or years, to keep the momentum of witness and faithful service going. Often, and bishops should be willing to quickly make this call, a parish really does not need to do a prolonged and protracted period of self-examination, but just continue to share God's love and God's greatest Good News, in Jesus Christ. I can vouch for Mary Anne's comment that the CDO may be staffed by wonderful, faithful people, but from time to time those people just do not seem to get it, when it comes to what a parish seeks and needs.
I sense that more and more parishes and dioceses will be resorting to the priest-in-charge call as a way to evade the clear shortcomings of the parish profile/interim/search committee model, for very good reasons. I hope that the bishops collectively will come to ask: Why? Why is this system for so many in our flock broken, and how should we fix it, to God's glory and to better fulfill all our baptismal covenants,

If you can figure out where I go to church and where I serve ... just forget it. I am not and cannot speak for my parish in any way, Just one guy. Thank you!!

Bishops like the Priest in Charge model because if there is trouble PiCs don't have the protections of the Canons that Rectors have.

That is a potential problem, Ann, and I could definitely imagine abuses. But I do believe that in cases where it is desirable to put someone in quickly that making them the incumbent immediately could pose difficulties. There is also a risk, again, only in some cases, of prematurely closing the ranks, when an intentional interim is called for. Flexibility and discernment are key. So are highly competent transitional ministry officers working with strong lay leadership teams. I hear a little too much focus on the interim. They can be bad, sure, but where else is the system not functioning well. A strong vestry or mission council, with the right help, will partner effectively with the diocese in securing new pastoral leadership.

As a relatively new Episcopalian (3 years) I cannot say I am entirely familiar with the process of clergy transition. One subject, however, that I have heard and read a bit about is locally raised up clergy. I'm surprised to see that it hasn't been mentioned in this discussion. Perhaps a reexamination of the concept of rector is called for.

-Sorry, I forgot to sign my name to the last comment re locally raised up clergy.

Cullin R. Schooley

The potential relationship between the deployment process and the church's issues is not clear to me, and I suspect that declining enrollment primarily is a function of shifting social mores and shifting demographics. That said, I agree that the clergy deployment system is seriously flawed.

The point about incumbents offering advice is spot on. There’s a big difference between making the selection itself and offering insight into organizational dynamics. The former could, of course, lead to sinecures; the latter, however, may offer valuable perspective. If a rector has been successful in her ministry, her advice likely is valuable. If she has been unsuccessful, her comments may either be lessons learned or a “how not to” guide. Either way, there are insights to be gained, and an orderly succession planning process promotes both continuity of operations and a well-reasoned decision.

The up-and-out-process for assistant rectors similarly is problematic. If one accepts the idea that any employee only really knows his way around after a year, then one is confronted by the fact that the first year is spent learning, the second year doing, and the third year leaving. This situation is exacerbated by the lengthy search processes in the church, which may take almost a year, and which are arduous for all involved. And given that most clergy already feel stretched thin, adding the search process to the mix inevitably means something is going to get short shrift.

The search process itself also is a mechanism that no longer matches the reality of modern life. Indeed, the striking thing about the process is the way it reflects a day and age when life moved more slowly, business was done primarily by letter, and decisions were made with great decorum by an inner circle within the relevant diocese and parish. Today, however, social media allows search committees to learn a lot about a candidate early in the process, and laity with any sort of radar (or online presence) may know more about the status of the search than do the candidates themselves. Thus, the process is cumbersome, ineffective, and lacking in transparency for all involved.

Another issue is that of supply clergy, which in my experience have ranged from the old, tired and feeble to grouchy and irritable, with few options in between. That’s a shame, because those attributes inevitably affect the relevant parish. And the likely trend towards more non-stipend clergy and part-time positions suggests that this is an area in which quality could make a big difference in the life of the church.

Eric Bonetti

PS Mary Anne, loved your comment about the CDO. Folks there, in my limited experience, are wonderful, but it's sort of like getting pastoral care from a priest who doesn't know you. Warm, uplifting, and well-intentioned, but painted with the broadest of brushes.

Eric B

Bill Carroll questions "calling a priest in charge with option to become incumbent." Is this anything like the bishop coadjutor situation, which, in the diocese of New York recently, seems to have allowed the Ordinary to choose his successor.

Gary and I been through two interim ministries. In the first, the people-in-charge decided not to hire an experienced interim pastor and went with a relatively green curate. The people-in-charge have remained in charge. The interim period in our neighborhood parish has lasted for a decade. Suspicions are that the previous bishop was working to close the place; the new bishop has taken an interest and provided better leadership. But the decade has taken its toll -- attendance is down, finances are shaky.

The problem isn't just parish disorganization: Eric Bonetti is probably right in saying "declining enrollment primarily is a function of shifting social mores and shifting demographics." We haven't really answered the question "What is the church for?"

In any event, a long interim looks to me like madness, a bureaucratic idea that complicates a personal process. No matter how much navel-gazing is done, the new rector will bring a new point of view and change the dynamics. I'm against clericalism and for lay leadership, but the Episcopal system doesn't seem to work without someone in charge.

...in the diocese of New York recently, seems to have allowed the Ordinary to choose his successor...

Murdoch,

Please forgive what may be a naive question, but I am unsure if you are making a political statement here, or an unintentional misrepresentation of process. While ordinaries can call for the election of a coadjutor in The Episcopal Church, they cannot choose them.

I might have said more precisely, "The process in the diocese of New York recently has seemed to result in the Ordinary, in effect, choosing his successor." I glossed over the process in favor of what looks like the outcome.

A controlling bishop can heavily influence selection of a coadjutor. Delegates to the electing convention know that they're going to be dealing with the Ordinary for two more years -- as will the coadjutor. It makes sense to choose someone compatible -- even someone suspected of having the Ordinary's approval. Great if you're looking for continuity, not promising for a fresh start.

The search process takes entirely too long, but I have seen some pitfalls with the new streamlined process whereby the Diocesan office gives a parish a list of a few names, and boom! the parish has to pick from that list.

I do like the hand-off idea, too.

My parish has been through more than its share of transition problems: we are now going through another search, having had one rector who left and was replaced by someone who had problems with the vestry among others, and then a long interregnum ending with a priest-in-charge who, unintentionally, set the parish into a competition between worship styles. He also is now gone, and the parish has a decidedly burnt-out feel. And with each change we've lost a bunch of people through conflicts. I have to question how many parishes really have the kind of institutional stability to weather an interim who feels he has to "shake things up"; my experience, as one of the stubborn ones, is that parishioners feel they are taken for a captive audience, decide they can't buck the rectory, and quit.