The Alban Institute’s Dan Hotchkiss just published an article on the evolution of interim ministry theory and practice. Given that the Alban Institute wrote the book on interim ministry, it is interesting to hear a senior staff member reflect on increasing criticism of the practice.
http://www.alban.org/conversation.aspx?id=9964
Hotchkiss writes: Over the last decade, the consensus in support of interim ministry has softened somewhat.
Carolyn Weese and Russell Crabtree, in The Elephant in the Boardroom (Jossey-Bass 2004), complain that the “prevailing stream of thinking about leadership transitions tends to be illness- based. A pastoral transition is treated like a terminal diagnosis….” (p. 19) Ouch!
Hotchkiss cites a recent article by Norman Bendroth, a long time interim ministry practitioner who surveyed current thinking about the interim system:
Bendroth writes: Anthony B. Robinson, a seasoned United Church of Christ pastor, author and consultant has recommended that “Tall Steeple” churches, in particular, might consider a “succession” model where the newly called pastor overlaps the outgoing pastor so the church does not lose momentum.
How effective is transitional ministry? There is a crying need for longitudinal studies to be done across denominational lines that will provide quantitative results. To date that has not been done,
Here in the Diocese of Massachusetts, a recent transition in our transition ministry office led to a lively discussion among our bishop and area deans about the future of transition ministry. Bishop Shaw cited statistics that show that interims often slow down a congregation’s momentum, that attendance and pledges often drop during the interim period. He noted that, given the unpredictability of many transitions, it is difficult to find good interim ministers in a timely fashion. He expressed openness to trying the planned succession model mentioned by Weese and Crabtree and Anthony Robinson. Our largest inner city church used the succession model several years ago and is flourishing. The deans noted that another model – appointment of a priest in charge as a prelude to calling that priest as rector, was increasingly popular.
Here at Old North, we are developing a long-range plan focused on our three hundredth birthday in eleven years. The wardens approached me about including succession planning as I will probably retire within that timeframe. They are intrigued with the idea of bringing an associate on who would be eligible to become rector.
The practice of interim ministry will continue to evolve as the church restructures herself for effective ministry in the 21st century. The articles cited above are useful introductory reflections. I agree with Norman Bendroth that we need some serious independent studies on what has or has not worked well in the church as well as studies of best practices in other business and non-profit organizations.
Norm and Dan are both well-qualified and their articles have lots of good material. But they are both from “protestant” (non-sacramental) traditions and I think it would be a useful project for the Episcopal Church to study this and see “what’s happening” around the Church. Any model will work, depending on the congregational dynamics and my experience is that most bishops/transition ministry officers do not have a very good, or indepth, understanding of most parishes in transition unless they have been fully involved because of some dysfunction in the particular parish.
My question would be, who pays for both clergy to be present with a congregation? Most of the congregations I am familiar with can barely afford to pay for one priest, and many are now in transition from a full to part time clergy.
I went through both parts of Interim Ministry training three years ago. I was the only non-clergy person in both parts of the training in my locale. I was one of only two in the two (linked) training classes with CDI (Deer Isle) certification in congregational development. Everybody else present, in both training classes, was either fresh out of seminary and desperate for a job, or about to retire and desperat for a job. I was struck by the paucity of actual OD learning in the training, supporting its claim of congregational development as an interim ministry goal. The thinness of actual data was matched by a wealth of anecdotal information. Perhaps these two aspects account for my observation that nobody in the room, in either session, called these clergy on their whining, complaining and blaming congregations for the problems they encountered or the difficulties in the congregations themselves. (I’ve noticed the same cranky tones in the Linked In discussions by Interim Ministry members.)
Following the conclusion of training, I wondered how decision-making leaders in congregations in transition would describe their experiences of having an interim. I developed a qualitative research project and have carried out the first stage of research, gathering data on all five classic aspects of Interim Ministry work, from leaders who were serving on session, vestry, consistory or council, during their interim transition 5 or fewer years ago.
The Rev.Dr. Erica Brown Wood was a partner in this study with me. She died in May of 2011, and since then the study has languished somewhat. Among our essential questions of the data gathered are: how helpful is interim/transitional ministry to the yearly, day-to-day work of church governance; how much real congregational development goes on during an interim/transition; is it necessary to have clergy doing this work? None of the analysis is done, and the data collecting is not entirely finished. So far, it covers almost 60 congregations in 4 denominations, urban, rural, suburban, large and small, in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Washington, D.C. While the study is still in its first phases, it promises to be very interesting.
I am very interested in your research. After working with three churches in transition from a full time to part time priest, I have decided to complete the second portion of intentional interim ministry training. My sense is that this particular transition is difficult for congregations, and I am hoping to find out in what ways interim training can be useful for them. I am sorry for your experience and hope that mine is not the same. The interims I have met thusfar are not as you described.
I am sorry to have left you hanging–perhaps you imagined I was Raptured or the other option. I took on the work of chairing the Bishop Search for my diocese, an 18+ month job. I have not been able to complete the interim research, in part because life interfered, and in part because my research partner died. In the main, what I’ve heard since of congregations’ experiences of interims have confirmed my unhappy impression of interims themselves–what seems good in theory is often very poorly conceived in fact by either the interim or the congregation. Judicatories themselves are not clear on what should happen in preparation for the interim, or how oversight should be exercised, especially when the judicatory staff has scant knowledge of congregational development. If I were to take on the project of interim research again, I would begin everything from scratch with a simpler questionnaire, face-to-face interviews, and much closer focus on one or two issues. I do hope your experiences have been positive, and that you are happy with the fruit of your work. Again, my apologies for the long silence.
The adversarial tone of clergy in the interim training/interim associative settings has echoes in other kinds of gatherings largely exclusive of the apostolate, but perhaps nobody has spoken about this in public before. in the training setting, the habit is given range precisely because of the absence of data from which to discuss issues with detachment, and also because the OD tools are not as sturdy or as much emphasized as might be. And, use of data is not well taught or instinctively understood. These weaknesses make it difficult for those in training (or gathered afterwards) to speak about real issues, with detachment. “I don’t know of any data for that, but here’s what happened to me…” almost always brings forth a round of personal stories with a pernicious effect on understanding options for future response.
Evaluation was one of the steps in interim training given very sketchy mention. It might be useful to have something along the lines of a mutual ministry review between the decision making leaders and the interim, conducted at the start to set expectations clearly, conducted mid-way through the interim for renegotiation as needed, and conducted at the close of the interim for learning opportunities on both sides.
I’m very interested in the work you’ve been doing–going from full to part-time with an interim or transition leader is a new take on that process in my experience. I’m sure you are right–the changes in expectation are much harder to make, than the changes resulting in replacement. It’s a wise diocese that invests in someone to help at that point.