a friend wrote and asked me what i meant when i told him recently that our generation of pastors (i'm 57 now) had been trained for one kind of pastoral leadership but is required to give quite another. here are the unrehearsed, insufficient words of my very quickly written post back to him. as i read them, i realized just how potentially hypocritical they were and how illequipped & reluctant i am to follow them.
remember, this is a clip from a discussion with a long time pastoral friend, in response to his question, "well then, what kind of pastors do you think we need to be?" (or something close to that)
well, that's a long discussion. basically i think we were trained (both formally and by informal and unintended expectations and assumptions) to lead the church to the goals we had for her, but are now in a situation where we are called upon to lead the church through a transition that will make it possible for her to realize the goals of those who follow us - those who come after us. it's sort of like we're being asked to cook the meal and set the table, then step back and watch while others are invited to eat. what's more, we're being asked to be at total peace with that.
our generation of pastors is, and this is my strong hunch, called to a ministry of "being significant - even essential, but not being recognized." ours is, i think, a ministry of preparation for the pastors and leaders that come later. we are a cohort of pastors that will need to know how to die to ourselves and our need for recognition even though we've been trained primarily to lead THROUGH recognition. we've been instructed, both by education and example, that good leadership rides the front horse into battle, but our expanding reality requires us to lead from the rear, finding peace and confidence to live in such a way that other generals are recognized for victories that could not have been won had we not been willing to use the cache and experience we had with no need to be celebrated for our contribution.
i'm sure i'm not being clear, but it used to be that you went to seminary, learned to preach, were a strong (meaning up front and effective) leader, accomplished good goals for the lord and his church, then enjoyed the fruit of that labor. and i think that was an excellent thing. this isn't a "that was bad but this is good" statement. it's just that this is a different time. this is a different church, in a different world. ours isn't a ministry of "dominating the lane" we're currently in but of "changing lanes" so someone else can continue to make progress on the journey.
i know that "lead from the front - lead from public strength" kind of leadership may still fill the seats, but it will be increasingly short-lived in terms of effectiveness in my opinion. sure, in some regions of the country that sort pastoral approach will continue to work for some time. but our generation of pastors will soon have to learn to lead through others, change the scorecard for success, allow god to defeat our insecurities (which you and i both know are well trained and well fed), and use any clout or influence we may have to set up the success of pastors and leaders we may never even know.
just today a pastor friend of mine said, "the reason people don't make paradigm shifts," which is what we're looking at here, btw, "is that they can't deal with the insecurity of not knowing what success and failure look like in the new paradigm. the drive to 'succeed' is so strong that we retreat to the old paradigm where those things were clear." my fear? i think the new paradigm for pastors of my generation and training is one that asks us to look less like the apostle paul and more like john the baptist. we've heard a lot of talk about "servant leadership" in our lives but few of us have seen it, been mentored in it, or are really open to living it. i know i'm sure not often willing, anyway! it's just too stinkin' difficult to make significant contributions to something for which i won't be applauded. sick, i know. but i'm battling it and even winning every-once-in-a-while.
and by "servant leadership" i don't mean sloppy work or weak leadership, either. i mean being excellent but not allowing a church to become too dependent upon that excellence. i mean being an excellent (or at least reasonably effective) preacher, but being willing to bring an even better, younger preacher onto the staff, giving him/her the pulpit, then allowing yourself to be fed by the messages he/she brings. i mean being able to answer all the questions but unwilling to be seen as the church's "answer man."
this is about being the kind of pastor who could knock the ball out of the park by yesterday's pastoral standards but is unwilling to do that in a way that might cause tomorrow's pastor, church or ministry to suffer because of it. it's about being willing to be perceived as insignificant in order to be faithful.
enough of my rantings. i still have an unfinished sermon on my desk here and a wife that is waiting for me to pick her up for a concert at the fillmore in san fran. :-)
love you, dear brother.
