Succession
Succession should be on the heart and mind of every leader—entrusting what we have experienced from the Word and ministry to faithful men and women who will continue to do the same (2 Timothy 2:2).
The question becomes: What are the biblical components to a healthy handing-off of the ministry baton? We can learn a great deal from our Lord as well as from other leaders in Scripture.
The first component is a healthy self-awareness. Others might call it a healthy E.Q. (emotional quotient).
Jesus knew exactly who He was and what He was called to do: “For I have come down from heaven not to do My will but to do the will of Him Who sent Me” (John 6:38).
In 2 Kings 1, we see the prophet Elijah’s self-awareness. When he was hunted down by King Ahaziah, Elijah told each person who came to arrest him that he was a man of God. His identity was truly in his relationship with God and his calling as a prophet. This resulted in him being an effective teacher of younger prophets as well as a role model to his successor, Elisha.
Elisha was so impressed with Elijah that he requested a double portion of his spirit. Elisha clearly received that double portion and effectively carried on the prophetic call with great passion and power.
Being secure in who we are as leaders and able to think of ourselves with sound judgment is paramount to healthy successions.
A lot of older pastors have lost sight of their strengths and weaknesses, their identity, because they have been busy trying to meet people’s expectations. In essence, the church has become their identity. This reality often leaves them unable to assess their effectiveness objectively, whereas Paul exhorts us to “think of ourselves with sound judgment” (Romans 12:3).
Being secure in who we are as leaders and able to think of ourselves with sound judgment is paramount to healthy successions.
Second, there must be a culture of trust among the leadership. Without a doubt, an atmosphere of trust was built between Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, and Jesus and His disciples. Each apprentice witnessed a consistency and integrity that was not just taught but modeled. Although Peter was impetuous with his comments, he sensed the freedom to express how he felt.
Unfortunately, too many boards and pastors do not foster transparency and trust; therefore, the hard things never get said. Yet open discussions must take place regarding succession.
An elder board chairman once called me to ask for some advice. He spoke kindly of his pastor but felt that his effectiveness and passion were seriously waning. Apparently the entire board was feeling the same. However, there was never any honest dialogue concerning the pastor’s performance. Nobody wanted to hurt the pastor’s feelings, so he was oblivious to the concern.
A micro-managing of people and their skills will only discourage those who have great potential to lead.
Evidently, the elders wanted me to tell him. I refused. They finally sat down and verbalized their concerns for him and the health of the church. Questions were asked: Was he excited about ministry? Did he think he could take the church into a healthier future? Was he just burned out or depressed? Did he have any real vision for the church? Did he need a sabbatical?
Once those questions were put on the table, the critical issues could then be addressed.
Third, there must be a philosophy of empowerment. We are told to equip the saints to do the work of ministry (Ephesians 4:12-13). Proper empowerment means intentional equipping and releasing. It means we are not afraid to let people fail.
A micro-managing of people and their skills will only discourage those who have great potential to lead. Jesus empowered His disciples to do ministry, yet He knew that there were times they would fail, such as when they were unable to deliver the boy from the seizures he was experiencing (Matthew 17:14-21). Jesus simply used the opportunity as a teaching moment. It wasn’t too many days later that he challenged them to go and make disciples.
It’s critical for pastors to be able to transition without worrying about financial stability.
Fourth, we must remember that succession is a process, not necessarily a plan. We should always be thinking through what it would it look like if our current leader were to leave, become disabled, retire, etc. This means that church leaders should engage in ongoing evaluation of the previous three principles.
In addition, it’s critical for pastors to be able to transition without worrying about financial stability. Unfortunately, too many churches offer inadequate compensation, so pastors cannot afford to leave when it is time. This reinforces how healthy succession is a long-term process.
Fifth, it is important that when a leader leaves, there’s a clean break. Jesus said to His disciples that He wouldn’t be around any more, but the Holy Spirit would be in them to guide them (John 16:5-7). It was time for the 12 to rise or fall on their own.
Setting clear boundaries is paramount to a healthy transition. If the pastor stays in the church, it is critical that he not meddle or exercise control from the sideline. He must defer to the new leaders any concerns that may come his way.
May we each prepare for powerful, timely successions to our ministries, looking forward to what God has next for us.
Tom Garasha is a pastor to pastors for EFCA West, after serving 24 years as lead pastor at Shiloh Community Church in Phoenix, Ariz. He has helped a number of older pastors transition from their local churches. “Even though each was a vulnerable time,” he says, “God was faithful to provide.”