Surviving the winds of change. . .

When traveling too or from my ancestral home in Northeast Nebraska, I generally drive HWY 36 from Hannibal to St. Jo, Missouri and back again.  Inevitably I pass the home of General John J. Pershing (Laclede) and James Cash Penny (Hamilton, Missouri).  I grew up with JC Penney (and Sears and Montgomery Wards and Woolworths and K-Mart).  You know how many of those big names are gone.  JC Penney is still around but has fallen on hard times.  JC Penney's problems were primarily caused by a failed pricing strategy implemented by former CEO Ron Johnson, who replaced traditional coupon sales with everyday low prices, leading to a loss of customer interest and sales. Additionally, the company struggled with increased competition from online retailers and a lack of clear identity in the market.   Even when they abandoned the changes that proved to be their downfall, they suffered and have been on a downward trajectory ever since.  Sometimes surviving the change back is as difficult as surviving the change that caused the problem.  This is true of business but also of religion.

While Pope Leo may be exercising some caution in his changes in the wake of Francis' death, the whole thing illustrates the problems of changing leaders in any context but especially in the Church.  When the pendulum swings to the other side, it brings with it a host of changes which may be salutary and good but which can also extract a real cost to the vitality of the institution.  The Roman Catholic Church cannot survive a pendulum swing back and forth between leaders who have very different visions of what that church is or should be.  With every swing back and forth it loses the confidence of its people, its stature in the world, and momentum.  That is why having a Francis as pope was so destructive.  Unless and until Leo restores what was, that church will continue to struggle and as long as the possibility remains that another Francis can undo what JPII and BXVI have done, the church will continue to run out of gas.

The same is true of Lutherans.  When we elect leaders who have such different styles and visions for our church body, we consume precious energy and resources just surviving the change.  Every institution struggles with this.  Seminaries and universities know the cost of such change -- even the salutary change which restores what was lost by unfaithful leaders.  Both Concordia Theological Seminary and Concordia Seminary have struggled with leadership changes which cost them momentum and credibility over the years.  It is a struggle even when the right direction is restored.  Everyone knows that there was and remains a distinct difference between the LCMS Presidents Harms and Preus, Kieschnick and Harrison.  No matter which side you were in casting a ballot, the hick up of distinct leadership change is hard on the institution.  That is why elections matter.

It is also true in the parish.  When there is a radical difference between one pastor and his successor, the congregation struggles with the change.  Even when the change is to move to restore what was, the very issue of change is its own problem.  People in the pew struggle to survive the change between liturgical and contemporary worship, between a gregarious and introvert pastoral personality, between a hands on pastor and one who seems attentive only to the things directly in his job description.  It does not matter which side you think is right or wrong, the change is hard on the institution.  Change is manageable and helpful when it is deliberate and incremental, when it is accompanied by a long term pastoral tenure, and when it is explained ad nauseam along the way.  Without these, change is just plain hard on us all.

We live in a world of change, a dizzying array of changes which daily provide us with too much to digest and become accustomed to.  When the Church becomes another venue of such change, it betrays part of its purpose and it also betrays the confidence and trust of the people.  So be careful.  Even when you are heading in the right direction, you must be sensitive to how these changes will be felt within the parish.  Sixteen years ago the Missouri Synod turned itself upside down in governance format and we are still trying to sort it all out.  It is a truism worth pondering for those who would like to make changes.  Sometimes it is not the particular change that is the problem but surviving change at all.  The Church is not the kind of institution which ought to be or can be a constant initiator of change.  We are by nature the preserver of tradition, salutary tradition, in which fidelity to Scripture and this tradition is more valuable than being reactive or proactive to every set of circumstances that might present themselves.  We have habits which are not always good but familiar and when we change our habits, we need to proceed with caution.  Shouting we are not your grandfather's church will not necessarily guarantee that we will become the church of the latest generation.  Oldsmobile once insisted it was not your grandfather's car but look where that landed them.  God has not given us the reins to the Church to do with as we see fit but called us to remain faithful, endure, and pass on faithfully what was passed down to us.  That might be enough despite those who think that unless we reinvent ourselves we shall surely die.