Previous | Next 

Blessed be the ties that bind: Pastoral term appointments

Ken Esau

“Pastor and Spouse have recently resigned after 10 years at Happy Hills MB Church. Pastor has an M.Div. from Fully Acceptable Seminary. They have two children, Betsy, 11, and Rick, 9, and are open to further ministry.”

This is the kind of Personalia announcement that we all enjoy reading. However, there are many pastors’ stories that do not go this well – stories of very short terms of service or of the resigning pastor’s unwillingness to jump back into ministry because of a “difficult ending”. “Difficult endings” are difficult for anyone in any area of life, but they are extra difficult for pastors, who, together with their families and relatives, constantly have to answer the question, “What happened?” While some of these pastors return to pastoral ministry in spite of their pain, many appear to be “casualties” who not only are lost to pastoral ministry but also carry with them long-term grieving.

In addition, churches also grieve through difficult endings. If outsiders perceive the congregation as having unfairly contributed to the difficult ending, the congregation can gain a negative reputation for decades, as word gets around that you should stay away from that particular church. The whole process of pain can be especially harmful for the youngest individuals in a congregation, new believers and visitors as they watch a church family go through a “divorce-like” conflict.


Almost all of us have experienced – or know a pastor who has experienced – these types of painful events. Yet, we continue on with our present system of church-pastor relationships, knowing that many pastors and churches will be casualties. Are there no alternatives?

SOLUTION #1 – Let the church pray and submit

Some have suggested that the problem essentially lies with churches being unwilling to understand their role. If churches would recognize that their role is to submit to God’s leader, then most difficult endings would be avoided. Essentially, we would remove the right of a congregation to end a pastoral tenure in a church (except presumably for theological or moral infractions). In other words, this solution assumes that pastors are the only ones who can truly hear the call of God to leave.

One wonders whether this would be much of a solution. While this method protects pastors, it seems to ignore the Holy Spirit’s presence in other church leaders or in the congregation as a whole. The New Testament, which always uses the plural “elders” when describing church leaders, does not separate out the “paid” individuals but assumes that all the leaders are “called”. Consistency would require us to suggest that congregations should submit equally to all of these congregational leaders until these individuals sense God’s call to leave.

Raising paid pastors to a higher level – they lead and the congregations have little say – may eliminate the danger of wounded pastors, but it would seem to do so at the expense of a healthy, vibrant congregation. Also, when we really get to know our pastors, we may come to realize that their decision-making often involves the same “mixed motives” that we all have. Some pastors, while using the language of “I feel called to move”, are quite willing to admit that they sometimes leave a church to avoid some perceived conflict, to move closer to aging parents or because their children do not have as many opportunities in that setting as they would like them to have. While we may not be happy that a deeply appreciated pastor has moved elsewhere for one of these reasons, we tend to treat it much more graciously than we would if a congregation with equally “non-spiritual” motives has “invited” a pastor to leave.

Trying to avoid difficult and painful endings by enforcing a strong pastor–congregation hierarchy could be effective, but it requires us to re-emphasize the unbiblical pastor–laity separation which the modern church has been trying to overcome. Why would we want to go back there?

SOLUTION #2 – Create structures that lessen the possibility of difficult endings

Why structure is needed

In human interactions, structures and clear understandings often help prevent a wide range of difficulties. We might express frustration with our children’s behaviour only to discover that we never told them what we expected. In our work places, we experience conflict because no one knows exactly who is responsible for this or that.

We often think about pastoral ministry as the land of the spiritual – a special plane where extra-spiritual people operate, with regular divine interventions which make structures mundane and unnecessary. We assume that God will speak clearly at each juncture and that everyone involved will be sensitively listening. We assume that pastors will move on at exactly the right time – not avoiding challenge and conflict but neither waiting too long. Are we simply asking too much?

I would like to suggest a modest proposal which is somewhere between the high vision for church leadership relationships which we hear about in the Bible and our present reality. John Howard Yoder called these kinds of arrangements “middle axioms” – structures and values that are not quite at the ideal state but are still an improvement on our present reality.

Our present reality simply does not seem to be working. We have many wounded pastors who are in other vocations because of a difficult ending. We have pastors presently in ministry who are more geared to avoiding a difficult ending than to accomplishing the objectives of their calling. Some of these deliberately resign every three years or so – “at the peak of their ministry” – to avoid the inevitable conflicts in church life. This keeps them safe from a difficult ending and maintains an unblemished resume. They can safely say that they were “well-liked” in each of their places of ministry.

We also have wounded churches who get blamed for this or that difficult ending. We have individuals in churches who sit wondering how long this present pastor will be there and whether they should move elsewhere. We might prefer that these people understood the church as a larger covenantal community, but the reality is that for many the pastor–congregation relationship is critical to their overall experience of church.

In the world of relationships – which church is – should it surprise us that experiences often do not meet expectations? Actually, we probably should be surprised that the present system works as well as it does. With all the inherent dangers at present, few of us would likely want to enter such a precarious mine-filled relationship (or encourage our children to do so). It does not appear that people in our churches are lining up to enter this sort of arrangement, which carries with it potentially devastating effects both personally and for one’s family.

Although in this present age we will never achieve perfect harmony in human relationships, clearly understood structures do help us avoid unnecessary pain and woundedness. In churches, we try to define clearly the expectations of terms of service for small group leaders, worship team members and so on. However, we have avoided doing this with those who have the most at stake. The creation of firmly defined terms of service for pastors in our churches would be a step in the direction of a structure which lessens misunderstanding while providing freedom.

Although many churches have pastoral “terms” at present, these hardly seem to function. Many pastors appear to feel no need to time their resignations to the end of their “term.” Also, churches do not necessarily wait for the end of a term before they encourage a pastor to move on. The “term” appears to mean very little. Even when the church fulfills a term but chooses not to renew, this is usually still viewed as a difficult ending and can cause significant hurt.

A modest proposal for pastoral terms

What would be the result if we could establish pastoral terms that meant something? What if pastors entered a set term that was clear and firm – say four or five years, ending with a four-month sabbatical – and after completion of the term they anticipated that they would move on? If one signs on for a term of service with Mennonite Central Committee and returns at the end of the three-year term, neither the individual nor others are likely to question the return. However, we have set individuals up to expect that pastoral ministry is a situation where they will minister to a congregation preferably for many years; then, at some point that seems right to them, they will hand in their resignation and leave.

In order for a pastoral term to be effective, there would have to have a firmness about it. Neither pastor nor church should easily be able to be freed from the term. The pastor could not simply claim to be “called” elsewhere, but neither could the church claim that it would have preferred a different pastor and recommend that the pastor leave. There would have to be some significant mutual hindrance which would discourage a departure in the midst of a term (9–12 months of salary, for example). Only ethical infractions or theological divergence from the Confession of Faith could avoid these consequences. Some sort of provincial church ministry panel may need to exist to evaluate these likely rare cases.

The pastoral term would also need to have a clear end. This is not an automatically renewing term which will be extended in 99% of the cases. Although a church could offer another equally binding two-or-three-year term, the end of the term should be seen as the end of the term. After four or five years of service, most pastors would move on to serve somewhere else.

Objections?

Many will loudly object at this point about the loss of valuable longer term pastoral tenures. But if the term does not have a firm end, it cannot really help us avoid difficult endings. If a pastor expects automatic ongoing renewals but does not receive them, that pastor could potentially be just as wounded as in the present system. The present system gave long-term ministry to some pastors, but resulted in quite a number of casualties. This new system should provide a healthy stability for all pastors, even though it sacrifices some of the potential longevity. There would be no major surprises; no sudden fear that the next church meeting could turn the tide; no worries that one might have to move in the middle of the school year and dislocate one’s family.

Is a four-or-five-year term too short? In comparison to the present, if all of our pastors served four-or-five-year terms, we would already extend the average length of pastoral ministry significantly. In addition, although much has been said about the great value of lengthy terms, hearing the same voice for many years also has some drawbacks. Someone told me at seminary, “Don’t take all your courses from the same professor.” That advice was based on the insight that professors – like pastors – have wisdom, but there is something to be gained by learning from and being mentored by a variety of individuals. While we do lose something when pastors come and go, to have our children experience a different pastor every five years is not the greatest hardship. To have our children live through the turbulent waters of church and pastor conflict seems to be a much greater price. For some churches, one term will undoubtedly be too short, so churches could enter a second term of two or three years, which would mean that longer tenures would still be possible. Structure must also be flexible, a servant rather than a master.

Are pastoral terms “biblical”? It would be impossible to find texts which institute such a structure, but it is equally impossible to find biblical texts to support much of what we accept as normal church life (church buildings, Sunday school, vacation Bible school, and so on). However, structures – such as pastoral terms – that show love and respect for people and stand against the demonic forces of disunity are at their core “biblical”.

The benefits of structure

Why would a church or a pastor want to enter into a structure that puts limitations upon the relationship? It is exactly these kinds of limiting structures that provide freedom. Within the pastoral term, pastors would have the freedom to plan, preach, teach, visit and minister boldly, without any fear that suddenly their family could be uprooted, their name and reputation questioned, and their future pushed in a new direction. Pastors can also experience some of the value of limits. Having a term can encourage both pastor and church to “seize the day” – making the most of every opportunity – since they know that the term will eventually end.

The church can also plan ahead, knowing that the next number of years have a shape and pattern. For example, if there is a building project planned, there will be no surprise resignations just after completion. If the church needs to hire an associate with a complementary gift, the congregation can know how long the “team” will be together. Set terms may also lessen the likelihood of people, in urban areas in particular, moving from one church to another following this or that pastor. Attendees who do not resonate that well with the pastor often do not know whether the pastor will be there one year, five years or ten years. If they knew the likely length of the term, they could make better decisions.

Structures can restrict, and they can free. They can be a hindrance to the Holy Spirit, or they can serve as protection for the Spirit to freely move. Term appointments for pastors are a structure that can protect that freedom and hopefully minimize the likelihood of wounded pastors and wounded churches limping along when they should be vibrantly focusing on what God has for them. Term appointments might mean more moving vans and more farewell picnics – but churches and pastors can handle moving vans and picnics much more easily than they can handle “difficult endings”.

Ken Esau is an instructor at Columbia Bible College and a member of Arnold Community Church in Abbotsford, B.C.

Previous | Next 

Last modified August 13, 2002.

© 2002 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.