How Should I Serve My Church after I Stop Being Its Senior Pastor?

I think this thread is a great companion to the question about multiple elders, because the question of whether a retired senior pastor has raised up competent men to work with him and "share the sandbox" while he was lead/senior pastor will dictate whether the man who replaces him will feel comfortable "sharing the sandbox" with his predecessor.

Along those lines, while I understand some people are saying "it just won't work" to remain in the background, and there are practical reasons that this can be difficult, I think it's a huge shame that so many pastors, not paid a princely wage by any stretch of the imagination, need to move on from their homes (losing 10% of its value or so in the transaction) because they need to find some other place to serve Christ. Even worse, it's severing long term relationships and friendships, which are super critical to thriving in retirement.

I’ve known at least one where the pastor hung on too long, because he was sure God did not want him to leave, and that made it hard on the congregation to know what to do when it was clear (like it is with Biden) that he really shouldn’t be in leadership any longer. They didn’t want to be disrespectful, but they had to find a way to move on.

I know one other case where the pastor retired while he still had his faculties, left the church for around a year, and afterward returned as a normal member. Any time anyone tried to ask him questions they would have asked him when he was pastor, he demurred, and referred them to the current leadership. That sounds wise to me, as I would usually be in the camp that it’s better for the congregation for the old pastor to not be present any longer, due to the conflict that will naturally arise, but it does look like some men and churches can handle this.

I don’t know if this is true in the above cases, but at my previous church, we not only paid our pastor well, we contributed to a 401K for him. The idea is that he would have to retire sooner or later, and at that age, should not have to find some kind of subsistence work to pay the bills. It’s definitely something churches should consider, and IMHO, any church that doesn’t already have its entire budget covered by building, payroll, and missions should be doing the same, and even then, they should be evaluating ways to make retirement for the pastor a reality.

I have personally not known a single pastor who stayed on in the background and was happy. I know that there are, but from my experience I don't think it is the norm. The issues I have seen are:

• The church makes decisions or change direction you do not agree with. After your entire life leading the church and then stepping back, a new pastor takes the helm and will invariably make different decisions than you would. I find most people struggle with that, even when they say they won't.
• You find that you don't fit in the church anymore. Being a leader and a congregant are two different things. You may have been okay being the 60 year old pastor with one other couple in the pews who are over 55. But as a congregant with no one in common, it can be challenging.
• Your presence can create tension for the new leadership as they try to balance coming to you verses the new leader. The new leader may feel they need to offer you deference, or are more careful because of your presence. Depending on your influence, it can be extremely challenging for the new pastor.
• You get lost in what your new role is. You have never been a congregant and never been a congregant amongst these individuals.
• Moving to a new church can be refreshing. You can rest and be refreshed in the Word, meet new people and find new ways of serving without having to tiptoe. This may mean you need to sell your house, or it may mean that you attend a church one town over.

My church has 7 full-time pastors & 2 part-time. At the end of this month, one of the part-timers, a 75 year old, is retiring.

Ten years ago, at age 65, he stepped down from being our senior pastor to become an associate pastor, serving in a couple of essential ministry roles. In this position, there has been no hint of any conflict or division to the best of my knowledge, whether in the pastoral staff or in the congregation.

Once he is officially, fully retired, he and his wife still have no plans to leave the church. With 33 years of memories & friendships at the church (so far), why would/should they?

Like Larry just said, if a plurality of elders is genuinely plural (and not a dictator and some yes-men), there’s no reason a “retired” elder shouldn’t stay and work part time.

If one man leaving causes everything to change so much that the retired elder would be uncomfortable, I think he had too much influence.

We’ve been working on succession at our church for more than a year now. We have a plurality of elders, but as a small church, it isn’t so easy to raise up a new “main teaching elder”/senior pastor internally.

It can be done. We would have to have started working on it like a decade ago, and I think we actually did (before my time at this church). But the problem with very long-term development efforts is that the likelihood that a trainee takes a ministry somewhere else exponentially increases. So you are helping sister churches—which is great, but doesn’t solve your local leadership need.

So we have been working to recruit short term pastoral staff with the potential to develop into senior leadership.

But it’s a struggle for larger ministries and an even bigger struggle for small ones.

Stay or leave?

As the posts above show, whether a retired pastor/elder can stick around on the team after “retiring” is complicated. If a church is ready and eager for a philosophy of ministry shift or a major emphasis shift and the lead elder is the main factor holding that back, then yes, it’s going to roll forward as soon as he loosens his grip on the reins. This will happen no matter how “truly plural” the eldership is—because even in really strong teams, there is disproportionate influence. Someone rises to the top, officially or otherwise.

We do it officially. There is less mystery to it that way.

So, plurality is not magical. It definitely helps, and if all the elders share a strong commitment to the same philosophy of ministry and matters of emphasis—or are agreed on needed shifts—it can certainly work for the former head to stay on the team in a less influential/less active role.

It’s complex, though—even more so if the church is growing—because new families have a transformative effect on the body. They bring new perspectives and interests and sensibilities, and the body changes as it assimilates.

So if a somewhat similar church across town collapses just as your lead elder is retiring, and you have a sudden influx of new attendees and members, you also suddenly have a “different church” for the new leadership to lead. No matter how harmonious things were before that, it can go quite differently than anyone expected.

I'm currently in a church where the former "senior pastor" of 30 years still serves the church as an elder. Most of his family (children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren) still attend the church, and he would like to continue to attend the church with his family.

We had many conversations about this before I came onboard. After two years, so far so good. Of course, it helps that I came to a generally healthy church where the retired pastor and I share a very similar theological perspective, philosophy of ministry, and emphasis on expository preaching. He is also a very kind and gracious guy. He spent time showing me the ropes, introducing me to various members of the congregation, and sharing with me the history and culture of the church.

I have also learned from the past mistakes of others. I did not come here with my own agenda. I did not come wanting to reshape the church in my own image. I have made changes and will continue to recommend changes to the elder team, but these changes will be slow and preceded by reading, preaching, and teaching.

The pastoral transitions that I've witnessed usually get bogged down or fail because the new guy feels the need to make quick and expansive changes to the church within his first two years. He immediately seeks to change the culture before he spends time to learn, understand, and appreciate the culture. This often alienates those who have faithfully attended and served in the church. This communicates to the church, "You've been doing this all wrong. I'm here to tell you how to do it right."

Before I began full-time pastoral ministry, I never understood why men come into a new church with this attitude and approach. I understand better now the impulse and desire these men feel. However, this is where a true plurality of elders is needed and helpful. A new pastor coming into the church needs to rely on the wisdom and counsel of his fellow elders. When they disagree with him or caution him to be patient, he shouldn't view them as roadblocks to change. They are God's gift to him and are his co-laborers. They can help him better understand the church culture, navigate any sacred cows, and keep him from causing unnecessary hurt and confusion. This requires patience and humility from all involved. This requires the new guy to spend more time on building relationships with the flock of God and establishing his preaching ministry than on implementing his strategic vision for the church.

But, building relationships and establishing one's preaching ministry takes time and isn't sexy. It doesn't establish you as a "vision caster" or "change agent" or whatever the latest, sexy title is within evangelical pastoral ministry. But, it will help you from being a hireling who only spends 2-5 years at a church before "being called" to another church.

Not sure why this would be necessary.

However, this is where a true plurality of elders is needed and helpful.

Why can't an elder listen to the wisdom and counsel of members of the congregation? And if they disagree with him or caution patience, take their advice without seeing them as roadblocks? Seems like the authority structure is irrelevant compared to the man's attitude.

Agree. Humility is humility—at least enough of it to know you are not all wise, all knowing, all seeing.

But in the NT, church leadership is always plural even in reference a very local gathering. The debate is over whether that adds up to a “we must do it that way.” My view is that it’s at least an ideal. But sometimes a church doesn’t have enough qualified men to be elders. It’s too new, too unhealthy, too small, etc.

But can you have a team of elders and still have a lead elder (or unofficially dominant one) who is too proud to listen to anyone? It happens all the time! (Was Diotrephes an elder? Kind of sounds like he was. 3 John 1:9-10)

The pastoral transitions that I’ve witnessed usually get bogged down or fail because the new guy feels the need to make quick and expansive changes to the church within his first two years. He immediately seeks to change the culture before he spends time to learn, understand, and appreciate the culture.

Yes. Have seen this so many times.

Why can't an elder listen to the wisdom and counsel of members of the congregation? And if they disagree with him or caution patience, take their advice without seeing them as roadblocks? Seems like the authority structure is irrelevant compared to the man's attitude.

It would be great if this were the case. The problem is many (most?) church members aren't comfortable voicing their disagreement directly with their pastor. This may be due to their understanding of Scriptural passages that speak to supporting, respecting, and obeying their church leaders. It may be due to the fact that some people feel intimidated or are unable to directly communicate disagreement with their pastor. Or, it may be due to the fact that some people are just gossips and back-biters. So, the pastor usually hears about opposition or disagreement indirectly and often views the feedback negatively as back-biting.

When I served as a children's ministry director, the women leaders in the children's ministry did not feel comfortable going to the "senior pastor" directly with any of their concerns, so they funneled them to me since I was an elder. Even when the pastor asked people to go to him directly with their concerns, that rarely happened, especially with women.

So, you can either chalk it up as a church full of gossips and back-biters, or you can acknowledge there are informal communication channels within churches that exist because people don't feel comfortable expressing disagreement directly with the "senior pastor." The pastor at the church where I served opted to view it all as gossip and back-biting. He came from a ceo-pastor church culture, where the "senior pastor" ran the show and everyone (including the elders) were expected to get on board.

With a true plurality of elders, you are surrounded by peers and co-laborers. Discussions can be open and frank without someone pulling the "I am the man of God" card or someone feeling intimidated to disagree with the "senior pastor." When someone gets a bit puffed up, the others can call that man to repentance and humility. etc.

I’ve observed the same phenomenon in completely different settings. In the non-ministry workplaces I’ve been employed in, some top leadership communicated in various non-verbal (or even explicit verbal) ways that they should not be approached about problems or with any kind of feedback. There was either implicit or explicit hierarchy. So you go to the next person up in your chain of command, so to speak, and that’s where your influence ends.

There are some very practical reasons for that, but that’s another topic.

In other places I’ve worked, the top leadership were actively and conspicuously trying to achieve open access. But people are naturally reluctant to do that. It feels risky—because it is.

Less so in a smaller organization, of course, where everything is naturally flatter.

But the larger the organization, the more power the top leadership has, and so—no matter how humble and accessible and kind they are—you are taking information/problems to someone who has a lot of power. They could fire you, your boss, and your boss’s boss on the spot if they wanted (or if not fire, make things a whole lot harder for all of you).

In ministry, things are almost always less hierarchical than that, but there is still a similar aversion to ‘going to the top’ with information/feedback. It feels risky because that person has a lot of influence. But it also can feel presumptuous—who am I to…?

There are ways to mitigate that, but it’s not going away entirely. Humans will be humans.