Parish Examen Series (7): Freeing the Father
# # #
The last three posts stayed close to the altar.
Spiritual life, Sunday Mass, the sacraments: each one asking, from a different angle, whether the parish is genuinely rooted in encounter with Jesus Christ. Whether the liturgy is prayed. Whether the sacraments are forming people or merely marking them.
This post steps back to ask what makes all of that sustainable.
Not a program question. A people question. Specifically: who is leading the parish, how are they formed, and are there enough of them to carry the mission without burning out the few who always show up?
The Examen placed its leadership questions immediately after its worship questions for a reason. Beautiful liturgy and a broken leadership culture can coexist for a while. They can't coexist indefinitely. Eventually the strain shows up in the worship, in the pastoral care, in the pastor himself.
# # #
The necessary outcome for this discipline is precise: a growing group of spirit-filled, wise people are guiding all aspects of the mission of the parish.
Two words deserve attention before moving on.
The first is growing. Not stable. Not the same faithful few who have been carrying the parish for twenty years. A parish whose leadership pool isn't expanding is a parish whose mission capacity is quietly contracting, even when the current leaders are excellent. Excellence in the present doesn't guarantee capacity for the future. Only a growing pipeline does that.
The second is spirit-filled. Not merely competent. Not merely available. We're not describing a management team. we're describing people whose leadership flows from genuine faith, from real encounter with Christ, from the kind of formation that makes them fit to guide others toward God. That's a different profile than most parishes use when they're looking for someone to chair a committee or coordinate a ministry. And it requires a different kind of investment than handing someone a binder and wishing them well.
# # #
Four signs of health are worth developing, because together they describe a leadership culture rather than a leadership roster.
The first is written position descriptions for all leadership roles, paid and unpaid. This sounds administrative. It isn't, or it isn't only. A position description is an act of clarity: about what a role exists to do, who owns it, what authority it carries, and how it connects to the parish's mission. Without that clarity, roles accumulate informally. Expectations go unstated. The gap between what someone thinks they're responsible for and what the pastor thinks they're responsible for becomes a source of quiet friction that never quite resolves, because it was never quite named.
The second is a clear process for recruiting, onboarding, and developing leaders at every level. Not finding warm bodies for vacant slots, but actually identifying people with gifts, inviting them into responsibility, accompanying them as they grow, and giving them the formation they need to lead well. This a leadership path. Most parishes don't have one. They have a vacancy and a phone call. Those are very different things, and they produce very different leaders.
The third is ongoing formation: retreats, training, coaching, spiritual direction, practical skill-building. A single orientation or brief workshop isn't sufficient. Leaders need to keep growing, both as disciples and as leaders. A parish that invests seriously in forming its people for mission but doesn't invest in forming its leaders for leadership has a gap at the top of the pipeline, and that gap eventually shows up everywhere else.
The fourth is a culture of multiplication. As leaders grow, they naturally identify and mentor the people coming behind them. This is where most parishes are weakest, because it requires current leaders to think beyond their own tenure and their own capacity. It requires asking not just who is doing the work now, but who will be doing it in three years, and whether anyone is preparing them. A parish that can't answer that question hasn't built a leadership culture. It's built a leadership dependency.
# # #
Here's the most common leadership failure in parish life, and it's worth naming plainly:
Everything flows to the pastor.
Not because he's controlling. Often, its because the parish hasn't built the structures that would let decisions, care, communication, and ministry leadership live anywhere else. The result is a man who is responsible for everything, empowered to delegate in theory, and surrounded by a culture that routes every question, conflict, and request back to him in practice anyway.
The consequences are real: stalled ministries, vision drift, burnout, disempowered volunteers, inefficient systems. But the deeper consequence is the one this series has been building toward since Post 4. A pastor who carries everything can't be the spiritual father his parish needs. His administrative burden isn't just an efficiency problem. It's a pastoral one. It crowds out the prayer, the presence, the availability, the unhurried care that form the spiritual temperature of a parish.
The solution isn't a better pastor. It's a better leadership structure around the pastor: one that distributes responsibility clearly, forms leaders to carry it, and actually trusts them to do so.
That last part is harder than it sounds. Delegation requires not just assigning tasks but genuinely releasing authority. A pastor who delegates in name but reviews every decision in practice hasn't delegated. He's created more work for himself and less ownership for everyone around him. Real delegation requires real trust, which requires real formation of the people being trusted.
# # #
When this discipline is neglected, four things tend to follow.
The bottleneck deepens. Ministries stall because everything waits on the pastor. Good ideas die in the queue. Capable people disengage because they can't get a decision or a clear mandate. The parish moves at the speed of one man's bandwidth, which is never fast enough and never should have been the design.
Vision drifts. Without consistent formation and alignment, leaders pursue individual ideas rather than collaborating on the parish's shared direction. The parish becomes a collection of fiefdoms, each one doing its own good work, none of them quite adding up to a common mission. The staff meeting becomes a coordination exercise rather than a leadership conversation.
Leaders burn out. Overburdened, under-trained, or unsupported leaders become fatigued. They don't always announce it. They quietly reduce their commitment, miss a few meetings, stop initiating, and eventually stop showing up. And the parish, which never built a pipeline behind them, suddenly has a vacancy and no one ready to fill it.
The warm body problem takes hold. Filling leadership positions with whoever is available rather than whoever is called, gifted, and formed. This deserves a careful framing: placing unprepared people in leadership roles isn't just a strategic mistake. It's a failure of the parish toward those people. They were handed responsibility without formation, authority without support, and expectations without clarity. When they struggle, and they often do, the parish loses a volunteer and sometimes a parishioner. The cost of under-investing in leader formation isn't just operational. It's pastoral.
# # #
Here's the most parishes haven't asked directly:
Are we staffed in leadership for growth? Not for the parish we are right now, but for the parish we are trying to become? Do we have more qualified leaders in development than we currently need?
Most parishes answer no to that question without having asked it, because they've never framed leadership as something that requires a pipeline. They've framed it as something that requires a volunteer. Those are very different frames. One produces a parish that reacts to vacancies. The other produces a parish that develops people before the vacancy exists.
The honest questions are these.
Do we have the right people in the top leadership roles, and do we have a real plan to develop them further? Are we forming leaders or merely using them? Do we have written clarity about who owns what, and does that clarity actually match how decisions get made? And are we investing now in the leaders we will need in three years, or are we hoping they appear when we need them?
A parish that can answer those questions confidently has something worth protecting. A parish that can't has something worth building.
# # #
Leadership isn't the most visible discipline in parish life. It doesn't show up in the bulletin or from the pulpit. It lives in the background, in the structures and cultures and habits that either free people to lead well or quietly prevent them from doing so.
But its effects are everywhere.
In whether the pastor can pray.
In whether ministries have owners or orphans.
In whether the parish is growing its capacity or slowly spending it down.
A growing group of spirit-filled, wise people guiding all aspects of the mission of the parish: that's the goal. It's worth asking honestly how far away it is, and what it would take to close the gap.
Next: decision making. Who decides what in a parish, how those decisions get made, and what the parish loses when the answer to both questions is unclear.
Comments
Post a Comment