Pastoral turnover and the call of preach

Bell & Howell Information and Learning: Foreign text omitted

One of the problems facing contemporary Christianity is pastoral turnover. On the average about every three or four years a U-Haul backs up to the parsonage, and minister and family relocate to another field of work. These ministerial changes have traditionally been viewed as blights upon the churches involved. As Richard Mather (1596-1669) noted: ". . . when such things doe often and frequently fall out, it is doubtlesse a Judgement of God upon such a people to have so many changes in their Ministers."1 Whether resulting from divine judgment or not, in general, pastoral turnover is a bad thing, causing untold harm to God's churches and God's servants.

First, it is harmful to the individual churches involved. Church members suffer during the interim period. They often have strife over the selection process in acquiring a new leader. The immature in the faith often become discouraged and drop out, sometimes joining the congregation down the street but often quitting church altogether.

Another way that churches are harmed through frequent pastoral turnover is that people fail to establish deep relationships with their pastors. They are therefore often unwilling to share their innermost problems. They even come to expect pastoral turnover with some regularity. As a result members of the pastor's family are many times viewed as outsiders, visiting for a time to fill the need of the congregation. If the people like the minister and his family, they guard against becoming too attached because they know that he will in all likelihood in a few short years break their hearts and leave. If they dislike him, there is no need for them to become overly upset, for no doubt he will be replaced before too long.

Churches are also hurt through pastoral turnover in that the minister's roots into the unchurched community are severed. Pastoral transitions generally diminish effectiveness. Win Arn wrote that it is foolish

to think of a physician, dentist, or other professional moving his/her place of practice from one city to another every four years, and expecting to have a growing and loyal customer base. What makes us think pastors can expect any long-term influence on a community by moving every four years? Of course, pastoral longevity, by itself, does not produce growth. But there is little doubt that rapid pastoral turnover prevents it.2

Representing an earlier era, Richard Baxter of Kidderminster (1615-91) made the same point as he reflected on his ministry:

And it much furthered my success that I stayed still in this one place. ... For he that removeth off from place to place may sow good seed in many places, but is not like to see much fruit in any unless some other skillful hand shall follow him to water it.3

These moves are also harmful to ministers and their families. Many ministerial wives never feel that they can settle down and nest. Many children of relocating ministers suffer, being regularly uprooted and replanted. Moving, after all, is quite traumatic. Ministers themselves face the repeated frustrations of starting all over again, never finding out what it is like to pastor a people whom they really know.

Most will probably admit that the three to four-year stay of ministers is less than desirable. Proposing solutions to the problem, however, is much harder. This paper examines some of the factors that have led to brief pastoral stays, including a critical analysis of the prevailing understanding of the call to preach. Building upon these findings, the paper concludes with a few suggestions toward a possible solution.

I. CURRENT APPROACH TO PASTORAL SELECTION: A CRITIQUE

One factor leading to these short-term pastorates is the way churches go about filling pulpits. When First Church is without a pastor, it looks to two basic sources to meet its need. On the one hand, it may look to "freefloating" ministers, those who, whether ordained or not, are unattached and therefore readily available to take on pastoral responsibility. These are usually young and inexperienced, often fresh out of college or seminary. On the other hand, the church may look to the pulpits of other churches. For most churches this is the preferred approach, since such ministers have at least some pastoral experience and their present work provides the opportunity for firsthand observation of how they are performing.

This approach to meeting churches' pastoral needs is inherently flawed. First, the Biblical evidence suggests a different method. More will be said of this below. Second, calling pastors from other pulpits tends to violate the Golden Rule on a church level. Connecticut pastor Timothy Tuttle in 1861 published an article titled "A Permanent Ministry." He described the practice of his day:

Strong and wealthy parishes also do wrong in inviting a minister from one that is weaker. Sometimes they send spies to hear one preach, concerning whom a good report has reached them; and if the spies, after hearing, recommend him, then a call is extended to him forthwith. This is not acting in accordance with the Savior's golden rule, not doing to others as they would that others should do to them.4