Weblog Entry - 12/18/2002: "Pastor Pinching"

12/18/2002 Entry: "Pastor Pinching"

Martin Roth - it's that man again! - has posted about his church's "recruitment" of a new pastor:

Last week my church voted to call a new senior pastor. The man in question has accepted our call. It seems we’re stealing him from another church. I have a question: aren’t there some ethics involved in this?

I can't claim to have any direct experience of this, since British Methodism is organised as a Connexion and the moves of our ministers are organised centrally, but why should lack of experience prevent me from having an opinion?For me, key questions would be around the "who approached who and why" type of issue. In other words, did the church advertise for a pastor and the man respond, or was the man "headhunted" and enticed away with pay and conditions in the way that is common in commercial situations. Will the move come as a total shock to the pastor's present congregation, or do they know he is contemplating a move? I don't like the language of 'contract' being applied to pastoral appointments. The distinction may seem subtle, but 'covenant' is a more appropriate model here. I hate to sound pompous ("What! Really?"), and I hardly dare say this, but the quality of integrity is perhaps the most important in a pastor. More important than the quality of sermons and all the rest of it. Integrity. I fear that the ability to walk away from a covenant relationship with a congregation calls that integrity into question.The other issue Martin raises is about the effect on the church that is being left behind. I have strong views about this too, no doubt coming from my convictions about the connexional model. But if the church that is being left would be injured by the move, then it should not happen. Our task as God's people is to build up the body of Christ, not merely the limb of it that we belong to. No one would deliberately hurt their legs in order to have stronger arms. Neither should the church.

Replies:

Yeah.. being a UMC.. I am not up to the whole 'recruitment' thing. But I think a lot of it boils down to what is ministry supposed to look like. I always use the definition that pastoral ministry should be done in such a that when I am appointed elsewhere the ministry that has been done together (between clergy and lay leadership) will continue... not because I say so.. but because the ministry will have grown out of their love of God and desire to serv their neighbors -- not out of my personality.

Posted by Pen @ 12/21/2002 03:19 AM CST

I agree Russ about the danger of a church being "wedded" to its pastor. I'm certainly not saying that pastors shouldn't move. I just think that pastors should be open with their folk if moves are being considered.

Posted by Richard @ 12/19/2002 06:52 PM CST

Interesting thoughts. Since the UMC in the US is also connectional, I have trouble understanding things like "pastor recruitment." I was intrigued by what you said regarding a departure hurting a church. I know of a methodist church that has had the same pastor for over 20 years. He started the church. The church is filled with his personality. I sometimes think the bishop may have failed this congregation, because when he finally leaves or retires, it will be devastating to that congregation.

Posted by Russ @ 12/19/2002 04:04 PM CST

Add A New Comment