One of the greatest problems I have observed in churches has to do with the issue of generational transitioning, that is, how you transition the next generation into positions of leadership. Most churches take one of three routes in attempting this. The first is the funeral method; when someone dies his or her leadership chair is filled by the next person in line, death is the only way into leadership. The second method is the coup; the group out of power works to destroy an individual in power and replace that individual with one of their own. The third method is the ostrich method; the group in power blinds itself for the need for the next generation to have a leadership role and pretty soon the problem resolves itself – the younger generation leaves.
This is a question that must be explored by every generation of people because there will always be a time when it is time to transfer in the young folks,
who they raised and whose faults they have known since birth, into positions of responsibility and leadership.
The way to transfer leadership from one generation to the next is through servanthood and relationship building. If a leader does not first think of themselves as a servant, then they will never be able to lead in directions that are best for the church, rather than best for themselves. If a leader does not build relationships with the next generation, then that leader will always see the next generation as the foolish teenagers they helped raise and will always overlook the God given gifts and abilities of these fellow servants.
In the same way, the emerging leaders in the coming generation must first be servants. They must be willing to submit themselves to their elders so that they can learn from them and not commit the same trespasses that the older generation committed. The emerging leaders must also build relationships. Without strong relationships built up, the older generation will always seem unchanging, uncompromising and out of touch with the world.
Before we delve further into the issue of generational transitions, two questions must be asked: why is generational transitioning in the church a problem and why, as we look at history, does it seem to be such a recurring problem? I believe that there are three answers to these questions. First, different cultures have different ways of experiencing God; second, individuals want thier needs met first; and third, change is hard.
Each generation, to a lesser or greater degree, produces with it a different culture. There are ways of worshipping God that better suit different cultures. The fact that God is worshipped in different ways neither makes one style right and one wrong, nor one style holier than another style. The different ways of worshipping God are just different.
I would take a moment here to say that we do not need to be comfortable in order to worship God; we can worship God regardless of outside style, substance or even theology. Worship of God is a matter between the individual and God. The only one who can keep me from worshipping God is me.
However, when two cultures worship God together there is a tendency for people to be uncomfortable. God is either worshipped in the style which one culture is comfortable with, which makes the other culture uncomfortable, or God is worshipped in a combination of styles, which makes both cultures uncomfortable.
This difference in style makes an older generation uncomfortable in handing over some leadership to the next generation, because it will erode their style and they will thus become less comfortable in the church. It is human nature to make one’s self as comfortable as possible and to defend that comfort. It is for this reason that leaders must be servants; they must be willing to think of others as being more important than themselves. The next generation leader must also be a servant and recognize that their comfort will make someone else uncomfortable.
This leads into the second reason for difficulty in generational transitioning: individuals want their needs met first. Humans are inherently selfish beings. We look to defend that which makes us comfortable. It is human nature for congregants to want the church to serve their needs and then serve the needs of the others. There must be mutual submission from both cultures to create an environment where intergenerational transfer of leadership is possible. Each culture must recognize the importance and value that the other culture represents.
Finally, generational transition is difficult because it requires change. Change is not easy for anyone, but it strikes some people especially hard. Because of this, it is necessary for generations to intentionally build relationships across generational lines. The younger generation needs to not promote change just for the sake of change, understanding that this will hurt other people. The older generation needs to accept that change is necessary and, with proper supervision, will make their church stronger than it ever was.
Having discussed the question of why generational transition is problematic, it would be good to briefly turn to the question of why generational transition of leadership is necessary. It is necessary for the older generation to build up leaders in the younger generation to perpetuate God’s ministry here on earth. If younger leaders are not given a chance to lead while there are still older leaders who can help guide them through the early learning stages of leadership, then the younger leaders are more apt to fail and hurt God’s ministry.
God has called us to go into all the world and spread the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This mission can not be accomplished if we are not intentionally building up new leaders all the time. In Leighton Ford’s book, Transforming Leadership, he speaks of the leadership gap that emerged in the business world of the 1990’s due to old school corporate leaders not building up the leaders who would eventually succeed them. As we look at what leaders emerged in the late 1990’s, they were largely young educated individuals who had tremendous powers of creation. Unfortunately, no one had taught them anything about business. I would suggest that the reason the tech bubble burst was because these brilliant people had not been given the opportunity to learn how to lead. The church should avoid making this mistake at all cost.
As a church’s leadership begins to transition leadership into a new generation there are three things that leader must do and three things that a leader must not do. A leader must not take sides, be alone, or command; a leader must work toward solutions of compromise, involve those he or she disagrees with, and respect all opinions.
When the time has come to transition a new generation into leadership there are usually at least two easily definable sides in the church: the new generation and the old generation. To successfully begin transferring leadership to the new generation, the current church leadership needs to avoid siding with either of these groups. If the leadership sides with the older generation, the church will tend to dismiss the younger generation as irrelevant. If the leadership sides with the younger generation, the older generation will begin to see the leadership as irrelevant. The leadership must submit to both sides and work towards solutions of compromise. By submit, I do not mean letting them have their way, I mean letting them have their say and affirming that they and their ideas are important for the church. When you have worked out a solution of compromise nobody is completely satisfied, but quite frankly that is probably best for the church. When a church meets all the expectations of any one person, it is only meeting the needs of one person.
The church leadership must not work alone; it must involve even the people that the leadership disagrees with. This does not mean that those who are in disagreement set the agenda, rather as the leadership moves toward compromise all ideas are affirmed and taken seriously. When leadership works in a vacuum, group-think takes over, then it becomes impossible to compromise because there are no known positions to compromise with.
Finally leadership must not command, but must respect all opinions. Going back to Leighton Ford’s book, there was no emerging leadership because the old-school leadership had a commanding style that did not allow for new opinions to be brought forth and thus did not allow younger potential leaders to emerge. Respecting opinions rather than commanding does not mean that leadership sways to whichever opinion is most popular, there are times when leadership must make unpopular decisions in order to lead a church where it needs to go. Respecting other opinions is a means of submission and facilitates the growth of relationships.
The “4-R’ model has tremendous implications for intergenerational transition. When we look at relationships, roles, responsibilities and results it becomes apparent that for one generation to successfully begin transferring leadership to the next, there must be considerable effort from the servant-leaders of the church.
Focusing first on relationships, for a leader to successfully begin a generational leadership transition, that individual must have strong relationships with God, him or her self and with other people (specifically the current generation of leaders and the prospective new generation of leaders). Without a strong, growing relationship with God the leader will not know God’s will. Without a strong, growing relationship with him or her self the leader will not be able to deal with the internal struggles that change creates. Without a strong, growing relationship with the current and emerging generations, the leader will be seen as an outsider trying to dictate change upon one group or the other.
The leaders beginning a generational leadership transition must posses all five “DICE+1” characteristics. They must have the dynamic determinism that will enable them to lead others in such a way that the others would wish to follow. They must have intellectual flexibility in order to adapt to the problems and concerns that will present themselves. This will also help them address the difficulties that the new generation leader will encounter. They must have the strength of character to do what God wants them to do, regardless of the outside pressures to do otherwise. They must have the emotional well-being to survive a rollercoaster ride that transition always is. Finally, they must have partner-up-ability so that they can lead the next generation leader and the old-school leaders to work somewhat harmoniously together.
During the generational leadership transition, the roles of the leadership are vital. There must be an agent of change who is willing to bring the idea of building up the next generation of leaders. There must be a strong coach who can guide the church through change, educating them about God’s plan and how it is working. There must be a spokesperson who can explain to those outside the church why there appears to be turmoil within the church. There must be a direction setter who can give hope and explain why it is such an exciting time to be a part of God’s church. If any of these roles are missing, the ability to have a positive generational transition is weakened.
The responsibilities of leadership must also be carried out. A vision must be cast that includes multiple generations leading together toward one central purpose; that is, the purpose of demonstrating Christ to the world. A strategy must be formed as to how the new generation of leadership will be meaningfully incorporated into the church structure. The goal is not necessarily to take power from those already in leadership; the goal is to be constantly building up new leaders. People must be aligned behind the vision to build up new leaders. As Jesus said, “a house divided can not stand.” If the church does not fully support a mentality of building up a new generation of leaders, then it will splinter and the attempt will hasten the decline of the church. Finally, the church must be motivated. The question, why do we have new leaders when the old ones were doing just fine, must be answered. The church is not building up new leaders for the here and now, but for the future expansion of the church.
Results are difficult to determine when dealing with generational transition. The best results for the early work of the next generation leader might be failure. It is important that leaders fail; much can be learned from failure. It is best for the next generation leader to fail while there are still other leaders around who can support and correct. However, it is also necessary for the next generation leader to succeed so the church can see that it is worthwhile to build up new leaders. The eventual result desired is the creation of a culture that is constantly seeking out and building up new leaders; when this happens then much of the tension that exists around generational transitioning disappears, since it becomes part of the normal operation of the church.
Often the problems that are experienced with generational transitioning exist in churches because those churches are failing to see beyond the here and now. I believe that once a church recognizes that it must plan for the future and realizes that the only way to do this is to bring up new leadership then generational transitioning becomes less of a problem. The goal of the church should be to create a culture that is constantly seeking out and building up new leaders who help the church spread the message of Christ to the world.
I know of many churches that have reached the point were generational transitioning is not a problem. These churches seek out and build up new leaders in the church. It is these churches that are growing and are bringing people into the Kingdom of Heaven. It is the church who cannot hand leadership over to the next generation that hurts the reputation of the church community as a whole and harms the message we were sent out to share.
At the end of Matthew chapter 28, Jesus instructed his disciples to, “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” No one person, no one group, and no one culture is able to reach all nations. It takes diversity and an appreciation of the differences that exist between us to work towards Christ’s commission. When we reach the point where we can accept that the people I don’t particularly care for are able to reach people that I have no shot at reaching, that is when we become a healthy church that is able to carry out the will of God and share the message of Christ Jesus with the world.
« Hide it
