One of the biggest APE’s (Anxiety Producing Events) for Churches of Christ is the Shepherd/Elder selection process. When this process is handled poorly–as it sometimes is–the direction of a church can change almost over night as a new wave of shepherds find themselves leading a church. They start making the changes they’ve been longing to make or they put an end to all of the changes that have been giving them (or their wives) heartburn.
How many church splits have occurred because of a poor shepherd selection process? How many ministers have found themselves needing to find a new job and fast because a group of new shepherds have come on board and taken a hard right turn? How many good men have signed on to be an elder without having a clue of what they were getting into and find themselves three years later disillusioned and broken-hearted by the whole process? How many churches have been unable to build any kind of momentum at all because of shepherd wars that occur because the wrong people have been asked to serve the church in the wrong capacity? Too many to name.
We’ve had our share of heartache and pain at Garnett because of a poorly designed and implemented Shepherd selection process. In fact, you might say that we’ve spent the last two years recovering from one that went horribly awry.
Last fall, our Leadership Team, which consists of Shepherds and Staff Ministers, decided to try a new approach. We worked it over for several months before the existing shepherds gave it their final approval. We’ve been implementing it for over six months now. You can take a look at the process here (pdf alert).
It’s not a perfect process. We expect to have to tweak it as we go along. So far, it’s worked well. Yesterday, I announced that two of our Shepherds-in-Training were ready to be given a final approval from the congregation. Our hope is that in a month or so, we’ll officially add them to the Leadership Team. Right now, we’re looking to fill our leadership pipeline with ever an growing number of potential shepherds and Shepherds-in-Training.
Telling Stories, Asking Questions, Learning Lessons
That’s a great process (it’s great that such a process even exists in the first place). My only concern would be letting 4 into the pipeline and only 2 out of it each quarter. Unless you’re expecting a 50% or so attrition rate, it seems some SITs would get bypassed when the year’s up although they haven’t been rejected.
I like this process. Very through with a real opportunity for SIT to get a real feel for what it is like to be a Shepherd.
Peace
I like this process. One question, though. Are the current shepherds and ministry staff the only people discussing/inviting future shepherding prospects? In other words, could the current shepherding group/ministry staff be overlooking good candidates that may rise to the surface through a congregational wide discernment process? Not sure what that would look like…just curious mostly.
The see behind the curtain before you are “IN” is great. Along with Ben my only question was about the collective wisdom of a Spirit indwelling community. Can they come together in prayer and recommend SIT’s? My past may be showing. I have seen too many congregations where the elders picked the elders and it was a good ol boy club. No change occurred unless a new elder tricked them into thinking he was something he wasn’t. It was also be great to see some times of prayer and listening together as a part of the process.
Great comments, questions and insights.
Charles–I’m not sure if our numbers will work in practice, but we had to start somewhere. Our main concern is that we don’t want to add too many shepherds too quickly and upset the dynamic of the team.
Ben–We’re exploring a way of using our small groups to help us surface potential shepherds. As a church gets larger I can see where it might be difficult to identify all the potential sheps out there, but right now I think we’ve got a pretty good idea of who is doing what in our body.
TCS–Self-perpetuating elderships have been a big problem in the past. By including our ministry staff in the mix, it keeps a more balanced perspective. Hopefully, the congregation will take the invitation to offer feedback seriously and that we’ll listen to the feedback. I hear you about the collective wisdom of the community, but honestly I’ve seen the “community” put forth some terrible shepherd candidates, even when done so under the covering of much prayer. That probably has more to do with the process than with the lack of wisdom in a community. As in most things, we need to find a balance here and I’m not claiming to have found it.
My hope is that this process, which is still a work in progress, will evolve into something where the leadership team, the church, and the Holy Spirit are working together to surface, equip, and empower the best possible leaders to do a very difficult job.
The church I attended for twenty years had a split a little over a year ago. It was the eldership selection process and results that precipitated the split. Nearly half of us left to form a new church. The increased energy, excitement, and feeling of freedom has been great. Our membership’s need to express their creativity and take the initiative on new endeavors has not been frustrated as before. Perhaps we are still in the honeymoon phase. I needed a change anyway. We all do sometimes. Our elders are appointed for rotating terms and I think that is a good idea. The elders at both churches are so earnest and serious. I think they work much too hard at it. My opinion regarding elderships is that usually too few are appointed and that the qualifications are much more stringent than necessary.
“…contantly on the lookout for men in the congregation…” I think you have some wonderful women in your congregation who would qualify. Have you ever considered adding women into this position? Not trying to be sarcastic or controversial, just curious.
I was at Pitman Creek. That probably says enough right there.
Melissa-we are bound by our heritage commitment that states that the role of shepherd is reserved for men.
However, more and more we are trying to think in terms of shepherd “couples.” Every one of our shepherds has a wonderful wife who plays a crucial role in the shepherding process and we’re trying to acknowledge that more than we have in the past. We’ve still got a long way to go though.
How does your church handle such matters? 🙂
I don’t really understand how male shepherds falls under the “Heritage” umbrella. I would personally feel better if my church made the decision to include / exclude women from certain leadership roles based on a biblical /spiritual argument rather than use the “heritage” one. It’s too important of an issue to default to heritage. I love Garnett, but this is one of those issues that I’d like to see handled differently.
Too funny Wade – you got me there. For those who don’t know me, I am *gasp* Catholic. (But shhhh…don’t tell anyone – I don’t want this to turn ugly the way Wade’s Lent/Easter Candy post did!)
I think that most churches, regardless of denomination, have some growing to do regarding leadership roles for men vs. women. I do hope that this is a change I am able to witness in my lifetime, as I think both men and women have so much to offer.
Jennifer–I hear you. But we can’t shoot every duck in the sky at the same time. 🙂
So, shepherds being men is tradition?
Are you trying to make church even more testosterone intolerant?!
It is bad enough that so many shepherds are sissies. Don’t make it worse.
This comment was purposely humorous. If you are all tied up in knots over it, do the world a favor and grow a sense of humor.
Jennifer/Wade,
I agree that “heritage” is not THE argument to put much weight in… But help me out here: What is the “biblical/spiritual” argument for women as elders/shepherds?
Thanks,
J
Jason-
I know this is getting way off the original subject – but Heather Hodges has a nice post about women in ministry on her blog right now. http://www.heatherhodges.com If you are interested in the “arguments” for women in ministry there is a pretty lengthy discussion that has taken place on Scot McKnight’s blog jesuscreed.org under the category Women in Ministry. (Hope this doesn’t get Wade in trouble at home!)
While I believe in everyone being able to use their gifts, the trump card for me always points to “Why Men Hate Going To Church” by David Murrow.
I see it turning people away from the church, not just men but women too.
This is good Wade!
This process is clear and fresh. Our Student Minister (One of your buddies, Wade) says our Shepherd Selection Process is old and boring. He has pointed us to your site. I hope we can assume you are sharing this model for others of us to adopt and personalize.
Isn’t it fascinating that the women’s issue comes up in this discussion? Though the link between the two issues is obvious, I stronly agree with Wade that the two cannot be addressed at the same time. The underlying deficiencies in a selection process and the underlying causes of restriction of women are very different. To “fix” the women’s issue by simply adding them to the selection process just won’t work. Though I must tell you we have a woman in our congregation who was nominated last go round. What that speaks to our leadership is that “recognized or not” here is one woman who has already accepted the call to be a spiritual leader.
Grace and Peace to all …
Ron–by all means adapt and use this as you see fit. Our version is a combination of other ideas we’ve borrowed from others and our own experience. If you find ways to improve it, send me the new and improved version.
Wade,
I wander by your blog every few months. It is always good to know you are still there. I was raised in (and stayed with) the CoC until age 32 (Garnett was my last one) and then “transplanted” (as if there is any significant difference) to the “Independent” Christian Church. I served as an elder there a couple of times. The polity process and in particular leadership transition proved to be very tough. The wisdom of avoiding “radical regime change” is valid, particularly in denominations that may have inherent tendencies to “absolutism” and for lack of a better word radical tendencies (no offense meant).
I recently became a member of the United Methodist Church (about as middle of the road as you can get in the Christian camp), so naturally some aspects of this sort of leadership transition are non-issues as they are regulated by formal denominational policy and practice (the Book of Discipline in our case). We’ll see how full-blown denominationalism fits my pistol. Maybe I’ll check back in and let you know. The first pastor switch ought to be interesting…
Hey Wade,
Specifically, what did leadership determine about the previous process which was poorly designed and implemented, and how did it go horribly awry?
Respectfully,
Glenn
P.S. If a poorly designed and implemented process goes horribly awry, does that mean it has corrected itself? Hmmm…… 😉
Wade–this is a good process. This year we have implemented one very similar where the staff and current elder group looked out over the church and discussed men who seemed qualified to serve (or had served elsewhere) as shepherds. They are now going through a six month period where they are part of elder meetings, are taking on shepherding of people roles, etc. At the end, we will have a time the congregation can affirm (or not affirm) those men. On a side note, these men can decline if, after seeing the “inner workings” they don’t want any of it. 🙂
Keep up the good work.