*(bishops, district superintendents, missionary field chairpersons, Christian education directors, parachurch administrators . … )

Good leadership is a limited resource that must be carefully nurtured and renewed. David McKenna advocates a great idea that could go far towards eliminating leadership frustration, waste, and break-down.

My first model for the ministry was a barn| V storming preacher who thundered from the pulpit, “Bless God, I’d rather wear out than rust out.” Guilt stalked me for years. Unless I was obsessively engaged in non-stop ministry that was leading onward and upward to the glory of early breakdown or death, I was cheating on my calling. A Sunday out of the pulpit twitted my conscience, a happy vacation stabbed at my soul, and any thought of a change from “full-time service” was condemned as the ultimate betrayal. Even good health provoked the question, “Am I doing my best for the kingdom of God?” If I wasn’t wearing out, I must be rusting out.

A Principle for Pastoral Renewal

Few of us would subscribe to the view that a wornout pastor is the best pastor. Yet in practice, we are slow to change that astitude. For instance, pastoral leadership is assumed to be an unlimited resource. If a pastor dies, breaks down, drops out, or betrays the sacred trust, our grief is short because we assume that God always has others waiting in the wings.

Such an assumption is only partially true. Certainly God will get his work done, but not at the expense of his creation. Equally certain is the fact that he has a special concern for those whom he has called and anointed to be his ministerial servants. Pastoral leadership is not an unlimited commodity to be used up andthrown away; it is a scarce and precious resource to be conserved, renewed, and expanded.

One half-truth leads to another. Conservationists warn us about “straight-line” or “linear” thinking that results from the presumption that our natural resources are unlimited. The gasoline crisis of 1977 is an example. Americans presumed that an unlimited oil supply could be charted on a solid straight line rising upward into infinity. Our gas-guzzling bliss was punctured first by The Club of Rome report informing us that the oil supply was not unlimited. In fact, the end of the line could be seen. The second shock came when the line was redrawn as a falling rather than a rising line, and the bottom dropped out when the Arabs cut the line in mid-course. Yet even today, most Americans do not believe that oil is limited and running out. Even if we did, we rest in the easy confidence that our technology can save us, or our military might can guarantee whatever fuel we need.

Straight-line thinking about pastoral leadership has similarities when applied to the ministerial career. Once a minister is called, it is assumed that God backs up the call with unlimited resources to go on forever, rising at all times on an unbroken line of activity. If the line is cut short, temporarily interrupted, or reversed from rising to falling, something is wrong with the minister, not in the way in which we develop and use the resources.

Waste and pollution are companions to the straight-line thinking that natural resources are unlimited. Kenneth Boulding describes our throw-away world with the phrase “a cowboy economy.” Picture a cowboy riding across the desert, blazing a trail with the ashes, bones, and garbage of his campfires. Sometimes the ministerial profession looks like a desert over which a cowboy has ridden and moved on, leaving the debris of burned-out pastors on the trail behind. A critic of the church once said, “It is the only army that shoots its wounded.” Broken-down, burnedout, and cast-off former pastors sit on the sidelines in our churches, sell real estate for a livelihood, and serve as guidance counselors in the public schools. If they could be renewed rather than rejected, there would be no shortage. of pastors.

Careless stewardship has put us into our fix; biblical stewardship will get us out. To begin, we must put a premium upon pastoral leadership. Good pastors are hard to find, and we cannot afford to lose one of them. Likewise, the call of God to minister is a special gift which cannot be treated lightly or taken as common. God’s grief for one of his chosen servants who drops out, breaks down, or fails must become our grief; and God’s glowing hope for the young and gifted minister must become our hope. Then, and only then, will we be taking a steward’s responsibility for recycling our pastors.

Experts in the field of recycling physical resources will be quick to spot the fallacy in the concept of recycling pastors. Whenever physical resources such as wood, metal, glass, oil, or coal are recycled, the quality of the product drops with each successive cycle. Even school children know that the Law of Entropy is at work. According to that law, the universe is running down and its physical resources are deteriorating with use. A recycled piece of wood never has the quality of the original log.

If the Law of Entropy alone is applied to recycling pastors, we would only be able to conserve their physical energies, but never stop the inevitable march to exhaustion and death. This is where a law of biblical dynamics takes over. It is the Law of Syntropy, which states that spiritual and intellectual resources improve and expand with use and re-use. How else could John have written, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God and it does not yet appear what we shall be”?

So, two counterforces are at work in the universe, each bearing upon the recycling process. One is the Law of Entropy that applies to the physical energies of the pastor; the other is the Law of Syntropy that applies to the spiritual and intellectual resources that the person brings to the ministry. Without falling into the Platonic trap of separating flesh and spirit, we know God will restore the quality of the physical universe when he fashions a new heaven and a new earth. On the way to that day, we are obligated to conserve his physical resources and use them wisely.

Our responsibility for spiritual resources is just the opposite. We are to exploit with reckless abandon our spiritual and intellectual resources because they enlarge in scope and gain in quality when used and reused. To return to Boulding’s “cowboy economy,” imagine the desert blooming as a rose with the beauty of expanding and improving spiritual resources which are being fully used time and time again. Recycling pastors, then, is a balance of these two principles. Physical resources are to be conserved; spiritual and intellectual resources are to be exploited. In combination, these principles will change our attitudes toward pastoral leadership and commit us to a plan for pastoral development.

A Plan for Pastoral Development

As another telltale indicator of our wasteful attitude toward pastoral leadership, most churches make no provision for the care and feeding of the minister. Pastors are expected to care for others, but who cares for the pastor? Someone has described a pastor as a person who works in a fishbowl on twenty-four-hour call at minimum pay without job security. Any other professional group would organize a union or a protective society and hire a lobbyist to promote higher wages, improved benefits, and better working conditions. Pastors do not think or act this way. Instead, they give, they serve, and they sacrifice-usually without verbal complaint. Maybe that is why churches tend to let their pastors run down until there are visible signs of fatigue or failure. Then, sympathy rises and Band-Aids are applied. Too late. The crisis could have been avoided by charging someone with the responsibility for preventive pastoral care.

Churches are not alone in neglecting their leaders. During the past twenty years as a college president, I have served as a director on several kinds of boards- religious, educational, and civic-at local, state, and national levels. Even though these boards are peopled by the top leadership of churches, colleges, and corporations, they have two faults in common. One is the failure to provide adequate orientation for new board members. It is assumed that every new director understands the organization with all of the nuances of its historical development, interpersonal dynamics, and interlocking policies. Most board members waste a three-year term warming up.

The other failure is to provide a personal and professional growth plan for executive development. Great care is taken in the selection process for executive leadership, but once the appointment is made, the board says by inference, “Now you’re on your own.” As a sign of confidence, it is good; but more often than not, it also shows a lack of care. The image of the tough-minded, self-made, goal-oriented executive carries over from board to board with a dog-eat-dog, make-it-or-break-it” attitude. Consequently I have accepted the personal mission to make trustee orientation and executive development my particular contribution to the boards on which I serve. Neither comes easily.

Recently I completed a three-year, non-renewable term on the board of a national educational association. My final act was to chair the nominating committee. We recommended the re-election of the president of the association, with the understanding that the chairman of the board had conferred personally with the president about his plans and needs, and on the condition that the board itself evaluate his performance in executive session. When I gave the nominating committee report, I was surprised by the cavalier response to our recommendation. As usual, time was at a premium, so no executive session was held and no chairman’s report was given. The president was reelected unanimously without discussion. The next day the new board met with one-third new members. A continuing member chose the occasion to draw and quarter the newly re-elected president. New board members were baffled by the attack and wondered what kind of responsibility they had accepted. The lesson should have been learned the night before. If a board member had reason to question the performance of the president of the association, it should have been voiced in executive session before the new board took over. The retiring chairman should have reported on his evaluation of the plans and needs of the executive. To risk a pun, both went by the boards. After the attack upon the executive, no one dared talk about his developmental needs as a person or as a professional. Most likely, his days are numbered.

Churches can correct these monumental errors by assigning either a standing or a special committee to take the responsibility of pastoral growth and renewal. The chairperson of the group should be one who understands leadership, genuinely cares for the pastor, and has the confidence of the church. Whomever that person may be, he or she has the responsibility to sit down with the pastor, share in his or her frustrations as well as aspirations, and then lead the committee in creating a plan for the development of ministerial leadership. Later on, that same committee must be able to objectify an evaluation of the pastor which may range from praise for a job well done to a recommendation for pastoral change. At all times, however, priority must be given to the good of the church and the growth of the pastor. But the primary task of the committee is to prepare and individualize a long-range plan for pastoral growth and renewal.

Churches can take a cue from the academic community. During the days when American higher education was bursting with student and campus growth, faculty members were upwardly mobile. No longer. With the decline of the student population, the stunting of campus growth, the oversupply of Ph.D.’s in many fields, and the impact of inflationary costs, the teaching community suddenly finds itself immobilized. The result is frustration that cannot be vented by a change of position. Turning inward, the faculties of the 1980 s are predicted to organize unions, resist administrative leadership, and suffer through a long period of low morale.

Campus leaders who have anticipated these realities have already turned their attention to faculty development. It is the only way to improve the quality of teaching when upward mobility is blocked and the number of young teachers entering the field is severely limited. Deans must sit down with faculty members to develop individualized and long-term growth and renewal plans. Goals must be set-not just for the improvement of teaching within the institution, but also for such aspirations as scholarship, writing consulting, and community service. Just as higher education is being forced to recognize the faculty as a natural resource that cannot be thrown away, churches should develop that same viewpoint-not as a tool in a survival kit, but as a truth of Christian stewardship.

To begin, the pastoral growth committee should project the personal and professional goals of the pastor. Personal goals might include physical fitness, family relationships, economic planning, avocational interests, travel, and friendships. When I interview a candidate for a position, I find that questions along these lines reveal more about the person than standardized questions on a professional evaluation sheet. Of course, the personalized aspects of a pastoral development plan are not a substitute for specific professional targets. A minister will probably identify his professional goals with a vision of the church, but that is not enough. The pastoral role has many functions, and no pastor excels at them all. Thus there will be priorities that build upon a pastor’s strengths, and others that correct obvious weaknesses. One pastor may envision a period when he’ll give primary attention to developing an expository pulpit; another may foresee the longrange need for a small group ministry to nurture new converts; and still another may recognize the need for a thrust into the community.

Priorities will depend upon pacing. Neither a pastor nor a church run at the same pace all the time. There are spurts of growth followed by pauses for consolidating the gains. A pastor must learn to read the pace of the church and respond with a matching ministry.

Almost without exception, a far-sighted professional development plan will include some advanced in-service education focusing upon the pastor’s intellectual development. A quick look at the changes in seminary curriculum during the past ten years is convincing proof that today’s ministers cannot serve effectively during the next ten years without upgrading pastoral theory and practice. A church that wants to grow and be renewed with its pastor will include the opportunity for in-service education as an ongoing commitment to professional development.

No pastoral development plan would be complete without a forward look to spiritual growth and development as explained by the Law of Syntropy. Specific goals may be harder to define, but the question must be asked, “What are your spiritual goals as a person and as a pastor during the next three to five years?” Whenever I ask this question of a candidate, the person usually responds with surprise, “No one has ever asked me that before.” After a moment’s reflection, when they seem to be reaching deep into the center of their being, they give such answers as “I want to learn to be more compassionate;” “I need to learn patience;” “I want to be a person of prayer;” “I want to be a student of the Word of God.” Contrary to our hidden and unrealistic expectations, ministers are not mature with all the fruits of the Spirit. Every one of them has spiritual needs and aspirations that should be identified-not to exploit their weaknesses, but to provide for their growth. In the context of a pastoral development plan, spiritual aspirations give flattering recognition to the fact that the pastor is fully human.

Recycling the physical resources of the pastor is a matter of individuality. Some pastors can work effectively over long periods of time without breaks because they have the enviable capacity to work when they work, and play when they play. Most of us get tired because we do not leave the work behind when we play, and the play behind when we work. Indefatigable people do not mix the two. Like a Bjorn Borg on the tennis court, they excel in work or play, and have superhuman energy for prolonged and strenuous tasks because nothing can break their power of concentration. Pastors would do well to cultivate a power of concentration which leaves church problems at home when they head for the golf course, and forgets wishful dreams about birdie putts when they close the door of their pastoral studies.

Other pastors have learned the secret of personal and spiritual recycling by taking five-minute vacations. I am a five-minute vacationer. Often I have just one hour at home between the end of an office day and an evening appointment. Stretched out prone on the sofa with the evening paper as a tent over my chest, I can instantly fall asleep, and awaken five minutes later with a surge of energy which will take me through another four or five hours of work.

Other people are quite different. I know a high-energy pastor who charges through an eighty-hour week, but who needs one day of isolation in his camper for physical and spiritual renewal. Still another friend works for six months without a break, until the coiled spring of physical energy unwinds and spiritual nerves are frayed. At that time, the only recourse is a total break from the scene for two or three weeks. After the semi-annual break, he returns with fresh energy for another six-month marathon.

Vacations must be custom designed. Many pastors try to piece together their vacation schedule a day or two at a time. For most of us, a vacation by bits and pieces only whets the appetite for relaxation. An old saw says that it takes the first three days of vacation for a busy executive to make the transition from work to play.

Whether or not that is true for every individual is a matter of debate, but the principle is sound. It takes a block of uninterrupted time for the body to renew itself and for the mind to gain perspective. For me, vacations move through three stages-relaxation, renewal, and readiness to return to work. One doctor has recommended that vacation time match a person’s age: with three weeks in the 30s, four weeks in the 40s, five weeks in the 50s, six weeks in the 60s. He must have had in mind the recycling principle which states that physical resources run down with use and age and therefore need more time for renewal.

A Proposal for Pastoral Sabbaticals

Vacations are primarily for the conservation of physical resources. Sabbatical time is needed for spiritual and intellectual expansion. A sabbatical break after seven years of work is a biblical concept related to the Year of Jubilee. Preaching on the subject, however, is usually limited to sabbaticals for the soil and freedom for the slaves. Until recent years, only the academic community picked up the concept, and began granting sabbatical time to professors after seven years of teaching. Now, sabbaticals are being extended to academic administrators and corporate executives. They too need renewal after seven years in the pressure cooker.

Sabbaticals should be introduced for pastors. They qualify by the personal and professional expectations that we place upon them. Few would debate a pastor’s need for physical renewal after seven years of intensive public ministry. The greater need, however, is to set aside a block of time for spiritual and intellectual renewal. Even though a pastor conscientiously reads and studies each week for sermon preparation, the multiple demands of the ministry restrict study in depth, limit the exploration of new ideas, and work against experimentation with new programs. Therefore, the purpose of a pastoral sabbatical is to provide an unencumbered block of time so the mind and spirit can be renewed by pursuing an idea or a project on the growing edge of the ministry.

I can imagine a pastor fulfilling a life-long dream to study at a great university, another to write a long-delayed book, another to serve on the mission field or in the ghetto, and still another to intern under the tutelage of a renowned minister.

If the committee on pastoral development follows the policies of the academic community, the pastoral development plan will provide a sabbatical of three to six months after five to seven years of service. When a sabbatical is earned, the pastor presents a proposal for the sabbatical project. If approved, the committee then takes responsibility to provide the resources required to free the pastor and sustain the church during the sabbatical period. In turn, the pastor accepts the obligation to prepare a formal report to the committee, and demonstrate the value of the experience in continuing service to the congregation. A sabbatical is a biblically sound investment in the growth potential of pastoral leadership as a scarce and valued natural resource of the church.

A Prospectus for Pastoral Growth and Change

A pastoral development plan includes evaluation. For some reason, professionals in every field resist evaluation. Doctors assume that no one can judge their performance except their peers in the profession, unless criminal activity is involved. Professors also assume that only their colleagues can evaluate their performance, except when there is legal proof of insanity, immorality, or incompetence. These strongholds are falling. Doctors and professors are becoming vulnerable to malpractice suits. In the days ahead, objective and regular evaluation of the professions-both

within and without-must be expected.

Pastors are equally resistant to evaluation. The typical argument is that spiritual matters cannot be measured by numbers. I agree, but not if it means that the pastor is evaluated by default. Without a formal evaluation based upon specific expectations and performance standards, pastors tend to be evaluated by hidden expectations and personality quirks. Perhaps that is why pastors succumb to evaluation by numbers-members, converts, budgets, and buildings. At least the standards are objective.

A pastoral development plan should operate between the extremes of unmeasurable goals and comparative numbers. When the pastor prepares a long-term plan for personal, professional, and spiritual growth, goals are being set. If the committee on pastoral development accepts that plan, it also accepts the goals against which the performance of the pastor is to be measured. These goals must be kept in focus for both continuing and periodic evaluation. Otherwise, judgments about pastoral performance slip into hidden expectations, personality differences, and headcounts.

A formal evaluation of pastoral growth and change should be planned on a three- to five-year cycle. It is an educational experience for the whole congregation to be involved, assuming that they have also been informed of the goals for the church and the pastor. The results of the evaluation should lead into the next cycle of pastoral growth and change.

If the goals have been achieved, two alternatives are open. One is to project forward the goals for the next cycle of the church and the pastor. Assuming that these goals are compatible, a mutual commitment should be made to restart the cycle. If they are not compatible with either church needs or pastoral aspirations, a change for the pastor should be considered; not as proof of failure, but as an opportunity for continuing growth. Of course, if the goals of the church and the pastor have not been met, the critical question “Why?” must be asked, in order to propose adjustments that may be as modest as a restatement of goals, and as radical as a change of ministers.

Contrary to some thinking, the best pastor may be the one who grows out of a job and chooses to change pastorates. A person who is gifted in church planting, for instance, should be honored, not condemned, for following his gifts and moving on to plant another church. According to the viewpoint of waste and pollution, a minister should adapt to all seasons of church change and growth; but according to the recycling viewpoint of leadership resources, that same pastor would move with dignity to a new opportunity. In most cases, unfortunately, the ego of the church is at stake even more than the pastor’s. If pastors could move with honor after they have maximized their gifts in a given situation, they would welcome the change. Evaluation of pastoral performance must include all of these options.

During the past year I have observed the work of a search committee seeking a senior pastor for our church. A well documented survey of the church and its needs produced some shocking results. An aging university church in a transitional urban setting proved to be both a threat and a challenge. Some candidates ran for cover and others did not qualify. Finally, with a clear sense of God’s leading, a person was chosen whose potential matched the challenge.

Now what? The search committee has self-destructed, the congregation is relieved, and the pastor is on his own. Except for the grace of God, all of the forces for leadership waste and pollution are in motion. If only a committee on pastoral development could be charged with the responsibility to maximize the potential of a gifted pastor, the church and the pastor would change and grow together.

I ask, “What is our obligation to the conservation of his physical energies and the expansion of his spiritual and intellectual potential?” Unless we have a pastoral development plan geared to these goals, and a committee charged with the responsibility to see it through, he will be subject to the whims of individuals and changing circumstances. If only we could see him as a scarce and valuable resource to be physically conserved and spiritually expanded, his future and the future of the church would be enhanced. The recycling of pastors is a biblical move for a daring church.

Copyright © 1980 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.