31 May 2011

Megachurch: succession issues

It's a fascinating thing to think about. There are several points to think about in
Megachurch For Sale one is to do with personality and succession, this one I've seen at first hand in a different context: "The difficulty in finding a successor to Robert Schuller has resulted in declining attendance, increasing debt, and now the loss of the church's most valuable (earthly) asset--its property." The problem is when a church is built, in effect, around the drive and personality of a particular (charismatic) individual it is almost impossible for it to continue 'business as usual' once that person moves on or dies. It is just so unlikely that those who have been involved and/or attending because they like the 'star' pastor will all find a replacement just as congenial.

The article goes on to outline the growth of megachurches in the USA and notes that they are largely led by dynamic baby-boomers who over the next decade are going to be retiring, in all probability: "The question looming over the megachurches is--how do they transfer leadership to the next generation in a way that maintains the enormous funds and personnel required to run them?"
Indeed.
I'm wondering whether this question is perhaps a bit like asking: how does the Elvis estate transfer fans to another icon? Which probably frames the issue in terms of how unlikely I think it actually is: if it's personality-dependent then the leadership will have to recognise a likely 'hit' in numbers and support while they establish a new 'brand' which will attract a new fan-base. Does it sound awful to put it in those terms? Probably, but I think we should not baulk from such analogies out of squeamishness which is borne of misplaced religious sensibility. The reason such things happen is that a certain degree of what is happening is hidden behind religious talk and posturing. Some of it is sincerely meant, perhaps a lot of it; but we should be wary of the Elmer Gantry effect sneaking up on ministries. Realistically, fans (religious or otherwise) are not going to transfer allegiances wholesale; they will move to the next items in their hierarchy of needs/desires. That may or may not be the church.

But let's notice too that part of what I've not been talking about is the relationship to God in Christ ... just so ... the success of megachurches is partly to be measured by how far they are able to help re-order the desires of their attenders and participants to 'seek first the Kingdom of God and God's righteousness'.
It may even be that we should question the value of such churches where there is a personality cult at work: do they actually serve the Spirit in Creation and Redemption or hinder?

The article rightly notes that this is not just megachurches, though the stakes are huge in terms of money and debt; frightening, in fact. So, how is succession to be managed? I see a number churches suffering from 'post-big-name' blues and woes. Well, I think that 'grow your own' might be part of the answer and careful and timely apprenticeship of possible successors. Along with the recognition that succession will involve 'churn' and planning for that it a sensible, no blame, sort of way. But I also wonder whether actually limiting church sizes might be a way forward.

I'm presupposing in thinking about this that personality is bound to figure to some degree, and that it can be part of God's design and ministry. It's the response to and deployment of personality that is the issue -including a grown-up recognition that it is a factor and then planning and praying around that. God creates us diverse and with personality, I don't go for that doctrine that seeks to eliminate personality from ministry. That's a recipe for a sneak attack by the unacknowledged. Insetead a sober assessment of the contribution of personality and an organising of a diverse team where personality is sought in a balancing way and where less dominant personalities are built up and publicly appreciated is needed. And if the big personality can't wear that, then isn't that a warning signal?

2 comments:

Steve Hayes said...

Many megachurches have recruited members from other denominations by denouncing "tradition" as something evil.

But the very idea of "succession" is the essence of tradition. So is the problem an unintended consequence, or an intended but unforeseen one?

Traditionally, of course, the Church relied on apostolic succession.

Andii said...

I'm intrigued by the succession thing in these -usually independent- churches. Notice in the referenced article that Schaller's successors have been his children (incidentally, there is evidence of that being the the case with Rectors of parishes in England during the pre-schism period). Many black-led independent Pentecostal churches have family succession too: I'm still pondering what that's about. I guess the justification would be to do with the formation of the successor by the predecessor ... ?

Your point about denouncing tradition is, I think, not unfair. The irony, as I often point out is that they cannot escape tradition (or liturgy!), merely dislike someone else's. Of course, the meaning of the word 'tradition' is not commensurate in your policy with theirs. What you call 'tradition' I suspect that they would think of along the lines of 'received wisdom' because in those traditions 'tradition' has to be a bad thing: so the good things that others might mean by it have to be re-labelled.

Christian England? Maybe not...

I've just read an interesting blog article from Paul Kingsnorth . I've responded to it elsewhere with regard to its consideration of...