It is not uncommon for pastors or bishops to make changes. God knows I did. But there is certainly a way to make changes and a reason for making changes that sometimes gets lost in this. In my case, my first parish did not have a Lutheran hymnal in the pews. That was in the old days of TLH as the sole LCMS hymnal. I did move them back into the book but did so with constant catechesis in sermons and studies. In part this was so that they did not get the idea that worship was experimental or that it was a matter of the current pastor's preference. The focus was decidedly on Lutheran identity and practice, just as the Augustana frames it in catholic doctrine and usage (or practice). The introduction of LW was necessitated by the poor condition of the TLH books and yet it too was a long and slow process so that they did not open the doors on Sunday morning to find a surprise awaiting them. Even in my second parish, where there was some liturgical tradition, my parts changed more than the parts of the people and it was a very slow and sometimes tedious process to address everything from weekly Eucharist to chanted liturgy to reverence as the byword of what we do in worship. Along with these things were the issues of lay leadership within the Divine Service and particularly of the role then of women leading parts of that Divine Service. The end result was that the changes became solidly incorporated into the congregation's faith, life, and identity and were not simply dismissed as worship whims or pastoral preference. These guiding principles helped us through LW through HS98 and into LSB without much of a ripple. Generous presiding along with reverent liturgical leadership is a plus.
That said, it is too often the case where, like this bishop, people are given orders or encounter rather sudden changes that disregard longstanding tradition. Even when that is not the preference of the new guy it does not have to be changed and it certainly does not have to be changed right away. Where there is urgency is when doctrinal issues are at stake, when bad practices must be rectified, and when continuing such practices would give people the idea that there is nothing wrong with them (except not my preference). Even in these cases, teaching is the means to make change. Before anything changes on Sunday morning, the people need to know what is going to change and why and if they are brought on board early, such changes will not be as conflicted as those which catch people by surprise. Other changes not necessitated by wrong doctrine or practice should be handled even more discreetly and with a very slow pace, always accompanied by instruction.
Oftentimes, the new guy (which I have been!) has a heads up to the things that need to be dealt with early. Those are the priority lists for the attention of the pastor as well as taking the time to get to know the people, earn their trust, and be accepted as a leader. A few early successes in old problems within the congregation can well serve the pastor as he moves forward. The bishop should have learned this by the time he became bishop, apparently he did not. But sometimes pastors forget that the parish is not a blank canvas on which they paint their picture of perfection. Every pastor makes changes but incremental changes over time last longer than sudden lane changes without announcement, explanation, or justification. Every new pastor seems to presume the guys who went before them were idiots or incompetents and every old pastor presumes the guys who follow them don't know anything. The truth is not quite true on either extreme. Unless the sheep are in extreme danger, the gentle path is the wiser one. It is hard to reestablish trust after conflict erupts but not impossible. I made a million mistakes and found people generally forgiving if they knew you were trying to work in their best interest. The unforgivable ones are generally the ones that hit them in the face without any teaching, direction, or explanation of what is to come. I will never say not to make any changes but I will always say to be generous, overly catechetical, and patient when making those changes -- it does not matter if you are a pastor or a bishop.
1 comment:
Many years ago, I attended a Congregational church. I was not a member, but I attended the worship service. The sermons were a drawing point because the senior pastor taught from the Bible and the messages were very good. Also, the choir and hymns were uplifting, and the congregation welcoming. Needless to say, a youth minister, very young, fresh from seminary education was hired. For some reason, the senior pastor allowed the assistant, newly minted minister, to make enormous changes. Eventually, the older members of the church left, and the congregation decreased to a small size. Once a prosperous and large congregation, it became a shadow of what it once was. And after the damage was done, the young minister departed for another church, and the original senior pastor never saw his congregation grow again. I do not know if the young pastor learned from his mistakes, but one would hope he did. I left the church to attend an LCMS body, and found it was more conservative, liturgical, and changes were not capricious or impulsive. I think there was a lesson here. Changes are sometimes needed, but not all changes are good. There is wisdom in discerning what really needs to be changed, and what should be retained. Soli Deo Gloria
Post a Comment