Shane Hipps, Teaching Pastor at Mars Hill Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, has resigned from his role. The Elders wanted him to do 40+ Sundays a year, and he could only pull off 30.
Shane had only spent a few months as the primary teacher there, after Rob Bell’s departure this year seeking a broader role/audience (you know you’re big stuff when you need a broader audience than 10,000 a week)
So this proves that Hell, despite the misgivings of Bell’s book “Love Wins” does in fact exist. It’s in a place called “Filling Rob Bell’s shoes in the Pulpit.”
So, how about you? Who would you hate to have to follow in the pulpit? Who would it be very hard to find a successor for?
[Source] – First sent to me by one of my alert readers Paul Tillman who has a really cool new website design by the way.After posting this someone sent me what Shane Hipps said in his resignation letter. It’s online here.
Steve DeNeff
ha! was writing mine before I saw yours
I’ve preached more than anyone but Steve DeNeff at College Church since he’s been there. I’ve tried to do my best–and usually did well (although a few of my jokes bombed in the live room while cracking up the edgier video venues, which is always awkward).
OFTEN, however, I have thought about how hard it would be to follow that man in a full time preaching role. He is prophetic. He is deep. He is engaging. He is talented. He is prepared. He is intense. Following him would not be the “hell” I implied above. But it would be hard. Good luck with that one, whomever it may be. 🙂
David,
Short and succinct, but incredibly thought-provoking.
I think that this scenario highlights what happens whenever one’s predecessor is larger than life. In the case of Mars Hill, Rob Bell was the founding pastor. A gifted communicator he became a rockstar both to the members of the church and those of wider society. From the outside looking in, it appears to me that Bell created some unhealthy expectations that Shane Hipps had to try to live up to.
Although the situation at Mars Hill will play out publicly, due to its celebrity, this scenario is played out in far too many churches. A pastor becomes beloved by a congregation because he/she is willing to do far more than he/she should do. They are praised and loved because they lack boundaries and work far too much. Whenever their replacement comes along, the replacement inevitably fails because it is impossible to replicate the unhealthy patters (at least until those patterns have been learned by the successor).
I’ve been in that situation and I work incredibly hard to make sure that I don’t create a similar situation for those that might follow me.
Josh, I would disagree with your one point. You said, “A pastor becomes beloved by a congregation because he/she is willing to do far more than he/she should do. They are praised and loved because they lack boundaries and work far too much.”
Certainly this MAY be the case, but just because a pastor is beloved by the congregation doesn’t mean he/she lacks boundaries or works too much. In fact, I personally worked with two pastors of large churches, and I would say the 1st had fairly solid boundaries most of the time, and the 2nd was incredibly laid back yet still led with great effectiveness.
I’m no expert, but for 7 years I lived right down the road from Mars Hill. I would suggest that the reason for the church’s current struggles are…
a) the great communicator is gone. Rob Bell – love him, hate him, or are indifferent toward him – is a phenomenal communicator. Sure, about FALSE teaching, ultimately, but a excellent communicator nonetheless. Most pastors WISH they could communicate half as effectively as he does.
b) the infrastructure is cracking. Mars Hill actually had some good infrastructure. But when your lead pastor is accused of heresy in the court of Christian public opinion, it’s hard to keep good staff pastors around. From what I understand, several key leaders bailed out when it all went sideways, and the church is still attempting to recover.
Anyway, back to Dave’s question… I think it’s always hard to follow the founding lead/senior pastor, particularly if he/she has been there for a long time. I think of Paul Hontz, Wayne Schmidt, John Maxwell, John Bray, and a few others. All these guys are living legends (and some of them are still in their founding church assignment – or if not ‘founding’, almost no one in their church remembers anyone else having ever been there), and following them must be crazy hard! This is why I give HUGE props to Jim Garlow at Skyline and Kyle Ray at Kentwood… their predecessors were/are outstanding spiritual leaders.
I am curious… as churches get bigger, it seems that a greater level of shared leadership/teaching responsibility needs to be spread out among the lead team in order to avoid (or at least, minimize) the ‘cult of personality’. But churches always need strong leadership, so one clear voice rather than a plethora of voices is typically preferred. So how do you balance the clear leadership of one lead pastor without setting him/her up for unavoidable collapse or compromise?
God help us all, and I am reminded once again to pray for our brother, Rob.
Such deep thoughts here from both of you, I can tell. Can’t reply more now… will come back when I have the time later today. Thanks for your thoughtful responses. Post links here if you write about this on your own blogs.
David (and everyone else): Here is the post that Shane Hipps made regarding his decision to leave… http://shanehipps.com/2012/05/dear-mars-hill/
Yep–someone else sent me that too so I included it in the orig post
Ken,
You are right to disagree with that point. Looking back at my initial response in light of your comments made me realize that I made a sweeping generalization that was not fair or accurate. There are pastors who set boundaries yet remain well-loved by their congregations.
That being said, however, I would contend that there are many situations, especially in small and medium sized congregations (where most of my experience lies), in which pastors are loved and admired for workaholism and unhealthy boundaries.
I agree with both of your points regarding the reason for Mars Hill’s current struggles.
I would also agree with your point regarding the difficulty of following any founding pastor. Although I’m not a huge fan of incorporating business practices and tacts into the church, I do think that this is one area where churches DO need to learn from the business world. Succession plans are something that large corporations have talked about and implemented, and it is something that I think the church needs to pay more attention to. After all, a strong argument can be made that Moses, Jesus, and many other leaders that we encounter in Scripture had a succession plan in place.
With respect to your question, a possible answer might be found in balancing strong pastoral leadership with strong leadership from the deacons/elders/local church board. I would suggest that such a board, if in place over the long haul, can provide some much needed accountability to the pastor who is exercising strong leadership, while at the same time providing strong leadership as the church transitions from one leader to the next.
Finally, a personal note: Blessings to you and your family as you transition into a new season of ministry!
Josh, you’re definitely on to something about workaholism and boundaries. I’ve seen plenty of guys in ministry who don’t really take a break (yours truly sometimes included), and when that kind of nonstop ministry action is celebrated, rewarded, or commended it sets a leader up for failure long-term.
I agree with your thoughts about some type of succession plan… tricky, though, when you’re trying to articulate clear vision & mission unless the successor is “all in” with the ministry direction of the church. I think that it’s helpful (not necessary, but helpful) if the successor comes from within. Someone who’s already acclimated to the DNA of a particular congregation would seem to be a great candidate for succession.
I realize I’m headed toward another rabbit-trail here, but here goes…
I think the role of the LBA/elders/deacons is an interesting conversation, particularly as a church gets larger. In my experience, these leaders’ involvements are much different in a church of 500 or 1000 or 1500 or 2000 than they are in a church of 200 or 300. So Dave (or Josh, or whoever), it may be worth a post/article sometime to discuss how such leaders are utilized/maximized in churches of various sizes. I’d love to hear what you have to say on the matter, and listen in to others’ thoughts on the matter.
Sorry to have digressed… this conversation has me thinking! 🙂
Great post, Ken… and good nuances above about the situation at Mars Hill.
And I’m glad you pointed out the successors we’ve had that have been successful – kyle and jim are certainly that!
Hey Josh…
If you’ve read Velvet Elvis I do think he confessed that perhaps Rob Bell created some unhealthy expectations that Rob Bell had to live up to.
:-)It is so very hard in these situations… I know a few pastors who are very humble and overwhelmed by the celebrity they have to now manage… There are huge upsides to that, but some downsides we little guys don’t imagine and have a hard time being sympathetic to. I know I do. Of course Shane had the worst of both worlds. Which is why I posted this.
David:
Velvet Elvis came to mind as I wrote my initial response. 😉
I think “celebrity” exists in a variety of levels. Often we hear celebrity and think mega-church, but celebrity comes in a variety of forms. Our church attendance drops significantly if I am on vacation. We experimented with using pre-recorded messages when I left and attendance (for the most part) remained where it would have been if I was gone.
I look at that scenario and grow concerned… What will happen if/when I do leave? Why do people feel that what I have to share is more important than what a guest/visiting speaker has to share?
All of that to say, I think that the temptations and problems of celebrity can manifest themselves even in small and medium size congregations. In fact, I’m increasingly wondering if why there tends to be a mass exit in small congregations when a pastor leaves, followed by slow but steady growth under a new pastor, only to have the cycle repeated when that pastor leaves.
Dave,
I don’t mean to offend, but this commentary of Shane stepping down seems really presumptuous. There could be a number of reasons aside from his inability to teach 40 Sundays that led to this. Are you omitting other information that informs your commentary?
Hey Chris… I included the official rationale that Shane gave and was quoted in the news. However, your question is very legit and does not in fact helps us be sensitive to what the elders meant. They haven’t spoken publicly yet for what I can find today…. All that to say. Your thought is the reason behind my fictitious title… There is much more to this story than what is in the news.
It just makes me think of the very tricky issue of succession. You guys do it well in the exit 59 tribe I think. Please share why?
Hey Chris… since I posted a reply I’ve seen more of what Shane has to say and I don’t think it changes my original post (although that post was very brief, with few assumptions, and in fact confirms the ones I made)
I do think there is so very much more to this story, however.
Nice to know that Shane is continuing in that community to teach for Mars Hill as they look for two successors now, really. I know many who had trouble with Shane’s preaching (far less famously than Rob’s) but also a lot of people loved him… and I really was into some of what he had to say. Sounds like he’ll still say it, but just in books and at Mars Hill for a brief season.
But I’m still wondering, Chris, what you all have learned int he Exit 59 crew about succession… you’ve done it many times. What’s the learning?
Dave,
Sorry for the delayed response. We have really enjoyed what we see as God giving us some specific “values” or “dna” that have helped shape the way that succession happens and, moreover, how our teaching is structured.
Firstly, we are a bit different than some churches in that we teach through whole books of the Bible instead of topically. For instance, we started this winter in Luke and are working our way through chapter 17 right now. This seems to help our teachers and the congregation have a common focus of the passage and seems to help people see the bigger picture instead of majoring on who is teaching any given week.
Secondly, though connected to the first, we study in community every week. We spend at least a few hours every Monday morning discussing, debating and sharing from our perspectives on the passage of the coming week. Our different perspectives and experiences lead to a great diversity of thought when it comes to forming the teaching at hand, so many of our teachers are “mutts” just by the nature of how we study.
Thirdly, we see one of our goals as a church to raise up, equip and send people. We are a sending church by nature, as you know through virtue of experience as well, Dave. To have a church full of students means that you have a great opportunity in the span of a few years to invest in people through discerning their gifting, calling them to service and developing them along the way. This means that we also give “air time” for new teachers in order that they might practice, fail, learn and grow into their giftings.
Because of these values and, moreover, the common unity within our community in upholding these things, we find people open to new leaders, willing to deal with developing people and generally prepared for change. We do have people partial to one teacher over others, but our people have really embraced our niche as a “training” church.
Having that said, I don’t know that many churches find themselves in the same landscape of people, so I can see how one leadership identity is firmly set in a way that becomes problematic for transition if that person(ality) were to leave.
The most interesting question to me seems to be how the whole livelihood of a church can hinge on one person or, rather, should we be trying harder to avoid situations full of unhealthy, unfair, or unrealistic expectations for church leadership.
thoughts?
So glad you came back and explained what is happening in your church network, Chris. I know much about it, but most have never heard of you guys… And I wish more were learning from you all.
For myself I’ve enjoyed using a teaching team at my church plants, the at SLWC… And then even here at CWC which has a dominant, charismatic point preacher, we’ve gone through a key transition. When I came the expectation was that only the senior pastor preached, and no staff. Only outside star preachers were to fill the pulpit. But Steve and I worked through a key season where more inside p teachers were used… Now there are a whole bunch of “other teachers” lending their voice to the pulpit direction of Cwc… And inline Steve continues to deliver, it is a bit less often, and others are delivering at a very high level. We certainly have high expectations for the preaching (a quality meter that is restrictive) but the quantity of Steve preaching is less guarded than before. Steve has led this transition well, and it helps the future possibilities for a successor here.
I’m wondering how it was so impossible to pull off 40 sermons a year? Many senior and solo do upwards of 50… Bum??
On another note, though, yikes trying to follow Rob Bell!! He was almost set up to fail from the beginning.
For me personally, anybody who’s so well-loved by their congregation and leaves would be hard to follow? There are so many comparisons drawn. “Pastor so and so was so creative…” or “Pastor so and so always used…” Know what I mean? Some are obviously harder than others (perhaps there is a direct correlation between size of church/popularity of pastor with how big the shoes are to fill), but anybody who is well loved or remembered fondly will be hard to follow.
Kevin Myers, Rick Warren… Look at Robert Schuller’s son following him at the Crystal Cathedral.
Good list
In the front of my dayplanner I have the promise God gave to Joshua, “Just as I was with Moses, so I will be with you.” Interesting that God didn’t ask Joshua to be with Him just as Moses was. With that in mind, I would ask a church if they were calling me as “me” or to be “the other guy.” If the answer is “me” I would follow anyone, even Steve DeNeff, if they still want “the other guy,” then I wouldn’t want to follow anyone, anywhere, anytime.
Now THAT was well said
I’m in the same camp
Of course, that means we would have to say no to many churches, because most want the strengths of the last one without the weaknesses
My cross post:
http://acts217.blogspot.com/2012/06/love-wins-but-next-guy-looses.html
Nice. Replied over there.
I’m gonna throw some fuel on the fire. I agree with the comments below, but I think the HARDEST act to follow as to be the pastor that is the “Rock Star Pastor”. That doesn’t mean he has to be at a large Church. A “Rock Star Pastor” is a church that is built on the personality of the lead pastor. Most of the time, these Churches are doomed. You have to find a pastor with the SAME charisma, or the Church seems to die. I have been fascinated to watch Francis Chan’s Church that he left in California continue to succeed after he has left. I think that shows the kind of person and leader the man is! A guy closer to “home” would be Wayne Smidt! The guy was an amazing leader. Another guy that comes to mind is one of the probably the least known names (but shouldn’t be) and that’s Wayne Otto. The guy gets a Church close to 300 to 500 people and leaves and starts and new Church and the Churches that he leaves, continue to grow and thrive. AMAZING!
Yep… I do know that Wayne at times has introduced his successor on the opening sunday of his church plants. That’s just AMAZING indeed.
With that being said…Not that I don’t like the guy…but I think the guy that worries me the most is Steven Furtick. I really do love the guy, but if he were to quit or step down or get out of the pulpit tomorrow…I have a hard time believing the Church would keep being as successful as it has been. I really hope not! I really respect and admire what he has done at Elevation, but I think he’s such a dynamic leader and charismatic personality that it would be SUPER hard to follow!
After posting this someone sent me what Shane Hipps said in his resignation letter. It’s online here: http://shanehipps.com/2012/05/dear-mars-hill/ for our reference in this discussion
(I also added it to the original post–so others can start with his direct words. FULL DISCLOSURE: before writing my original post I DID look for an official post from Mars Hill at their site and could not find one.)
No one, I think, should fill another’s shoes. Bring your own and make plenty of footprints while you’re there.
well put
you’re full of quotes from self today
I started to comment, but I went on so long that it turned into a blog post. http://creativecommunicationinthechurch.blogspot.com/
HA! Figured that might happen to a few. Thanks for the link. We’ll read it.
Priscilla, I read your post, and well… it was awesome.
Great thoughts, and an excellent challenge for all of us.
(As a sidenote, I was a teenager at Kentwood when Kevin was on staff with Wayne. He probably can’t BELIEVE I’m a pastor now, anymore than I can believe he’s pastoring 12Stone. But hey… God DOES work miracles! Haha!)
I would not want to fill the shoes for Andy Stanley
For sure… megachurch pastor and the founding pastor… and wrote the book on communication (literally)
Doesn’t something tell you though, just because of the leader he is, that they won’t hurt when he retires? Don’t get me wrong, they should get the cream of the crop, but I would imagine that Andy will have somone in training when he feels his time is done. he is a Super dynamic leader, but I think he does a good job of building people around him. For example: NOBODY is on stage or upfront at the Church like Steven Furtick. When you go to the website…it’s steven furtick this steven furtick that…go to http://www.steverfurtick.com. I mean it’s plastered everywhere. Go to Northe Point and you will find Andy’s name, but not plastered. It’s just something to think about even as we have Churches of our own. Are we building on MY personality, or on the Cornerstone of Jesus Christ. Like I said, I want Elevation to thrive, but something just doesn’t sit right when I see a MANS name everywhere. That’s why I would argue as of right now…I think next to Driscoll and Furtick…I don’t know who would be harder to follow!?!?
Yep.
If your face seems to be the logo of your ministry, there is a problem.
Hey Dave, I don’t mean to digress, but your article makes me think… Is the reason it’s so hard to follow someone like that due to the fact that most people these days don’t really submit to spiritual authority? I realize that’s a tough question, since a sub-par leader/pastor/teacher shouldn’t expect people to blindly follow their leadership if they stink at communicating God’s Word, are horrible at church administration, and have zero interpersonal skills – I mean, you can’t say, “I’m not good, but you MUST follow me!”
But when someone GOOD follows someone else who was good (Shane Hipps, for instance), and people don’t respond to his leadership (or even leave in droves), is that an indication that Rob Bell was a rockstar, that Shane was subpar, or that people are fickle and fairly unresponsive to spiritual authority?
Just wondering what your thoughts are about that…
You’ve hit the nail on the head.
Spiritual Authority is a phrase you can’t even mention in America without people pulling out their “Don’t Tread On Me” flags.
The “Me to We” portion of SoulShift tour dates for us always shows this. Steve rocks into a bit about submitting to boards and pastors and rules and the room just dries up like a raisin.
Hilarious.
Paul N. Trent I like Lloyd’s comment. Just a reminder that “All God’s Childen got shoes! If you feel comfortable in your own shoes, wear them and let God do the rest!
nice one, paul
I think it’s always tough to follow a pastor who has held a pulpit for an extended period of time. Some of the mainline churches may have it right when they bring in one or two year interims before hiring the new full time pastor. Of course, this takes a lot of guts–churches often lose some of their cogregants with an interim, but by the time the new pastor comes, the congregation is often more appreciative of the new gifts that have come to the church.
Perhaps it’s like waiting a decent amount of time to remarry after a spouse dies.
The intentional interim situation is really good. We did that at College church for 18 months before Steve DeNeff came in–and it was VERY important for this church (we had never really done that before, in 100 years)
oh, and our discipline will now have a category for interim, so perhaps we’re learning from other denoms.
I sent my resume to Mars Hill about 10 years ago. I’m expecting their recruiter to call me any day now.
Nice. 🙂
I like what Perry Noble of Newspring is doing. Like Andy Stanley, he attempts to surround himself with people who could replace him when his time is done (Brad cooper, Clayton King, etc). As of the beginning of June, he decided to take a two month sabbatical. This will be a good test of seeing how well a church could sustain itself without the prominent leader there. I agree with the comments about Furtick. I don’t really see who he is “prepping” to be his predecessor; which consequently, if he was to leave, could potentially cripple the church.
There might be a few realistic situations out there:
1) a ‘successor culture’ – where everyone is grooming their successor at all times, from day one
2) a plurality of leadership culture where there is no one clear leader–so departures hit softer
3) a popular point leader culture – where when someone leaves another person with enormous gifts is sought
4) a ‘successor someday’ culture — where everyone is so young they haven’t thought abou it yet-and only will after their kids go to college (this might be the case for someone as young as Furtick)
I agree with this assessment. I respect Steven, but if I were to make a constructive criticism of him, I would say that he needs to have a guy on staff that gets more facetime, just in case! When Steven has a guest speaker, it’s not usually from someone within. It’s a BIG name like Jakes or Noble or Stanly. I think Perry Noble does a good job of letting his staff guys have a lot of face time! Furtick may not have a guy on staff yet that he trusts as much as Perry does, but I pray that Steven will get a guy like that in the future! All for the Kingdom!
I totally agree. Clayton sees enough face time and people already respect him enough that if he took over, I don’t think Newspring would skip a beat. I don’t follow 12 Stones as much as a should, but does Kevin do a good job of this?
It seems that if TWC is wanting to raise up ‘strong, aggressive and entrepreneurial’ pastors, then a founding pastor will likely be ‘strong, aggressive and entrepreneurial’. Even when that pastor invests in building leaders around her/him, it is likely that the ministry will at some level be built around that person.
It is extraordinarily difficult to follow a person who has a public, national image such as Rob Bell has. It is also difficult to follow a long-time pastor even if they aren’t famous or exceptionally charismatic. Often there is a ‘sacrificial lamb’ that follows the strong leader, but not always. I agree with Amanda that an interim pastor might be a great way to avoid the ‘sacrificial lamb’ syndrome. Some time between the strong leader and the next leader gives a chance for the former image, structure and personality to diminish and allows for a new face with a new call, structure and vision to emerge. However, just as there is no universal way to “do” church, there is no universal way to plan for the next pastor. Every transition is different and unique to each church and each pastor. I believe we can learn and gain insight and wisdom from watching some of the more visible transitions such as Rob Bell’s and then apply what seems best in each individual situation. David Drury gave a good list of possible scenarios for various situations.
Wow… This is pretty much a “summarizing” post for this whole comment thread. Wise.