1 comment
481 views
Church Order Article 14a includes a provision that shocks many pastors (and councils):
“A minister of the Word shall not leave the congregation with which the minister is connected for another church without the consent of the council.” (emphasis mine)
Though shocking to our modern sensibilities of personal agency and employment norms (and possibly even contrary to employment laws), it is true that a council may prevent their minister from accepting a call to another congregation. In his commentary on the Church Order, Henry DeMoor says there’s “no doubt” that Article 14a gives a council this right.
But should they exercise their right to say “no”?
Admittedly, this right is rarely exercised. Many pastors and councils don’t know it’s in the church order. And many councils, even if they do know, assume that if their pastor wants to leave it would be unwise to try to force the pastor to stay.
For the most part, I think councils are wise to exercise this right sparingly. DeMoor gives some positive examples of councils who believed there was some important work yet to be done, who asked the pastor to stay for a couple more years, and whose pastor eventually left, persuaded that the council was wise in saying “no” the first time (and grateful the council said “yes” the second time).
But more often than not, I suspect a council’s “no” could very well lead to resentment or frustration.
So what’s the provision doing in the church order?
Article 14a puts an emphasis on a distinctive aspect of our Reformed understanding of pastoral employment: that pastors are not merely employees of the congregation, they are also called by God to their work. That call, in our polity, must be recognized and affirmed by the pastor and by the broader community (councils must recommend candidates based on their recognition of God’s call to them into ministry, Synods confirm candidates based on the same kind of recognition, classes examine candidates to examine their sense of call and fitness for its work, councils call pastors out of a sense that God is leading them to do so in their particular context).
To paraphrase Lord’s Day 1, because pastors are called, they are “not their own but belong,” in some sense, to God and to his church. This calling affords ministers certain privileges, but also implies some obligations. One obligation is that they are not totally free to discern and decide on their own if and when a call to a particular place has ended.
A better practice
The advice I sometimes give church councils is that if they’ve not made a regular habit of collaboratively discerning their pastor's ongoing call, they can’t start now that the pastor suddenly has a letter of call to leave.
A better application of Article 14a is to say that church councils ought to have a deliberate, prayerful conversation with their pastor on a regular basis (e.g. annually) about their respective senses of the ongoing call.
Since councils may be cautious about this, pastors may be wise to initiate this conversation with their councils.
Obviously, these conversations can be tricky, especially if the pastor and council find out they are not on the same page, or if they find out they are on the same page that the call should end! But Church Order Article 14a operates on the premise that a council and pastor should be able to have these conversations, and discern God’s will together. A good question to ask in such circumstances might be, “What is God doing among us in this situation, and how should we respond?” And if there is disagreement or tension, it's always helpful to bring in a wise third party, like Church Visitors.
Employment Essentials
For more help on conducting annual evaluations and discerning an ongoing call together, check out the Sustaining Essentials section of Thrive’s Church Employment Essentials resource. You can contact the Thrive team with any church staffing questions by email ([email protected]) or calling 800-272-5125.
Pastor Search Committees, Pastors
Church Admin & Finance, Pastor Search Committees
Pastor Search Committees, Council
Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.
Add Your Post
Comments
I think a good practice for Thrive would be to list the author of articles like this that are posted under the Thrive name but conspicuously and freely use first person singular pronouns. Who is the "I" in this article who is emphasizing, suspecting, thinking, and advising? Certainly, Thrive as an organization is not referring to itself in the first person singular.
I'm not insinuating anything nefarious, but it seems odd and in poor form to write on behalf of an organization in the first person without attributing authorship.
Let's Discuss
We love your comments! Thank you for helping us uphold the Community Guidelines to make this an encouraging and respectful community for everyone.