[Consider this a draft. I wrestle with the right and wrong of these issues, especially having had first hand experience with this circumstance — and having many friends caught up such situations as well. And so, maybe I’m missing something. It’s hard to be objective.]
In an earlier post, Kent Gatewood pointed out that firing a minister often results in the minister starting a new church and taking many of the old church’s members with him. This is, of course, devastating to the old church, regardless of why it happens.
And it’s a difficult ethical conundrum. I feel quite strongly that a preacher may not, while on the payroll, do anything detrimental to his church. He has to be loyal to those who are paying him. It’s pretty fundamental. It’s implicit in the relationship.
He can search for another job, but not a job that would hurt his present church. He has to search for a new job out of town (unless he lives in a town so big that he can stay in town and not hurt his former church).
But what if he’s been fired? Well, if he’s on severance, the first rule still applies. He cannot take money from someone whom he is undermining. It’s just not right.
But what if he’s fired and not on severance? May he —
* Start a new church built on membership in his former church?
* Go to work in a congregation in the same town, knowing that doing so will draw many members from his old church?
I think the answer to the first question remains “no,” and obviously so. Consider these reasons —
* If a preacher might take a large number of the church’s members and start a new church were he to be fired, then the eldership can’t fire him without dividing their church. This gives the preacher economic bargaining power that overturns the scriptural rule that the elders oversee the church, including the church’s employees. The preacher becomes the bishop of the church.
* The elders never would have hired the man had he said, “If you fire me, I’ll steal your members.”
* It violates the Golden Rule. After all, how would he feel if, in his new church, the youth minister he hires were to treat him as he is treating his former elders?
And so, it seems essential that the preacher, as a matter of principle, refuse to start that church.
Now to the second question: what if an existing church in town offers him a job? If he’s in Dallas and moving 50 miles away, he likely won’t draw enough old members away to matter. He can take the job. But most of these issues come up in smaller towns, where inevitably his taking another job in the same town will steal members.
May he do it? Again, I think the answer is “no.” It’s a closer case, because he’s not quite so directly undercutting his former church, but I think it’s still wrong. Here’s why I think so —
* Again, had the original elders known he might bolt for a job in the same city, they’d have never hired him. No eldership would.
* I’ve known lots of preachers in my day. The best of them would not do this. They think it’s wrong. And I respect their consciences.
* The Golden Rule again applies — as is always the case, of course. Would he want a minister in his church to leave, move to a nearby church, and steal his members?
* If he’s smart, he’d realize that the new church might be hiring him more for his ability to steal members than for his own skills. The new church might not be very loyal to him, especially given that they’re asking him to be disloyal.
Now, I say all this realizing that there are hard fact patterns. If the old church fires him unfairly with no severance, he may well have trouble finding a job out of town. The old church may be horribly led and steeped in legalism. The town may have a desperate need for people to leave and start a new church.
But folks can leave, if they must, without hiring away staff members from the old church. And preachers can find work in other cities. And churches that wish to be compassionate to an unfairly fired minister can support him without hiring him and using him to steal members.
Now, the other side of this problem is, as Kent also pointed out, what do you do when the elders are the ones who ought to be fired? That’ll be the topic for a future post.
In the general case, both sides believe they are right. But usually, at least one side is in the wrong. How do I know if I'm right, or merely deceived? Each party should proceed based on what they believe to be right, but with an eye on the possibility that they might be wrong. IMO that precludes the option of drawing others away to form a new congregation.
Acts 20 warns elders to protect against a church leader drawing members away. 1 John 2:19 alludes to this having actually occurred, and calls those who did it "antichrists." I doubt those who did so believed they were in the wrong when they did it.
In Matt 15:14 Jesus told his disciples to leave the Pharisees because they were blind guides. If leadership of a congregation is that bad, individuals can leave and find another congregation. I think that is the correct way to deal with such a situation, rather than to take steps to divide a congregation. Ultimately God will hold the elders accountable for the flock he placed under their care.
This is all so "employee law" driven. It acts as if a "covenant not to compete" is even an appropriate consideration in ministry. It seems to assume a limited supply (customers) from which market forces work. Maybe that's appropriate, but is it the only view consistent with a kingdom perspective?
What about a man who comes to town only to find the elders have misrepresented? He buys a house, settles down to allow his children to finish high school, (having begun high school in another state) and then is forced out a week before they begin their junior and senior years in high school? Is it unethical to continue his calling in that town? The easy answer of "a preacher can always find a position in another town" presumes that it's appropriate to require that preacher's children to attend 3 high schools in 4 years. Why should he be required to move in a KINGDOM perspective (not a "covenant not to compete" employment/labor law perspective)?
I struggled mightily with this decision. I did not feel comfortable preaching in that same town, but when a new group formed, and when they invited me to speak to them, I did it. We are not intentionally built solely upon membership from my former church, nor do I wish to do so. I have not invited one person from the former church to attend with us, although anyone is welcome. There are plenty of unchurched people in this county who need to be reached. But had I stayed in the community to allow my kids to finish two years of high school, and had I followed the "labor law" approach, I would have been required to leave ministry due to "unfair competition." I just don't think Jesus would have us dividing up franchises.
Please don't misunderstand. When people from my old church contact me, I encourage them to prayerfully consider where they can best accomplish kingdom business. The vast majority of those people have decided to stay at the old church. I respect and support their decisions. It was not my desire to leave that church, nor was it the church's desire to have me leave. We live in a small town and my relationship with the members of that church continues to be good, but I have no desire to siphon off saved people from a church that needs renewal. I think they can stay there and be agents of necessary revival. As for us, we just want to serve God and reach this community. Some have joined us; most have not. But in no way do I see us in competition with our old church. But neither do I see employment or fiduciary standards driving the decisions that have been made here.
If I felt it would be spiritually beneficial for those people to leave that church, I would say so. If I felt it would be spriritually beneficial for them to stay, I would say so. If I felt it is a personal decision that would be appropriate for some and not for others, I would say so, and that is exactly what I have said. But in any case, the decision should be made on the principle of the advancement of the kingdom, not just American jurisprudential principles.
This is a difficult discussion without context. We readily acknowledge the possibility of self-delusion and rationalization. We desparately want to be kingdom-driven, not "former church" driven. I don't think there's a one of us who came from the old church who hasn't spent serious time wrestling with whether we are "just church splitters" but most of us feel that we were driven out without a home, and as refugees often do, we have formed a camp. Nevertheless, we struggle with the self-doubt you would expect from people who value unity and do not want to be divisive.
I know I've written a book in this post, but please consider one final point: unity defined at a congregational level can be problematic. It results in loyalty to buildings and elders over Christ. If Jesus has left the building, but elders demand one to stay, must he do so? If the leadership is autocratic and abusive, is it still mandatory to remain without those brick walls? Is the sin always on the one who leaves? I don't believe these situations are suspectible to simple "unity/splitter" evaluations any more than marriages fall into "innocent" and "guilty" parties. "One size fits all" rules ignore the factual contexts in which these sad dilemmas arise.
Grace & Peace,
Steve Kenney
Fellowship Church of Christ
Russellville KY http://www.loganfcc.com http://www.stevekenney.blogspot.com
I don't see any problem with overseers overseeing either, depending on what you mean by "oversee" and how this works with the minister.
I'm not exactly a "mutual ministry" type, but some bad experiences and observation of the consequences of a hired-minister perspective have caused me to be a bit wary. Please excuse any knee-jerk reactions on my part.
I'll check that post about team ministry as soon as I can. Right now I'm headed out to study the Bible with a family!
This is a tough issue, rather U.S.-centric in certain regards, but worth discussing. The only point that stuck out and concerned me was the “elders oversee” and “employees” comment. This sounds a lot like a board of directors hiring managers, not the letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus.
Then again, I have major issues with the “elder-rule” policy of Churches of Christ. I believe in a biblical eldership, but also in biblical evangelists.
Sorry, I’ll just blog on this myself. Don’t want to fill up your comments. Thanks for addressing this difficult issues.
Adam G,
I look forward to your posts. Readers, Adam posts at http://igneousquill.blogspot.com/.
I don’t see a problem with overseers overseeing. And you should read that comment in light of my post at /2008/06/13/how-not-to-have-to-fire-your-preacher-keeping-the-right-guy/ — and the rest of that series, where I argue for a team approach among the elders and ministers.
Steve,
Thanks so much for your post. As I noted at the beginning, this is an issue I struggle with.
I’ve had friends on both sides. I have personal experience with both sides.
I’ve had a preacher at my church spend weeks, while on the church payroll, soliciting people to leave and join the church he was planning. I’ve had good men — badly treated by another eldership in my hometown — apply to work in my congregation.
And as I noted at the beginning, this is a draft. Before I respond to your particular points, I’d really like to hear from other readers. I could use the input.
I've already posted very long winded "books" on my leaving a congregation and I don't want to rehash old stuff. But this is a subject that is very near and dear to my heart. In the area I live in there are a lot of congregations of the churches of Christ.
When I was fired, I was approached about starting a new congregation in an empty building that used to host another congregation within the fellowship. From a personal level, I declined. If there had been an existing congregation there, the decision would have been harder for me. I tend to agree with Jay about the ethics of taking a paycheck from a congregation while at the same time trying to convince some of their members to leave.
However, I also sympathize with a great number of preachers who have been forced out at the whims of a minority. The temptation is great to want to hurt the group for the terrible way you feel you have been treated. However, our ethics are really what's at stake. I took an approach similar to our brother above. When someone asked me what was going on, I tried to be honest and also told them they should address further questions to the elders so they would have a chance to respond. I told them that they had to follow their conscience as to what their next step should be.
There was one couple that I did want to go with me to the congregation I was moving to. (About 40 miles away). However, I was upfront with the elders about what I was doing. This was a couple that I had spent a great deal of time working with and I was afraid the man would fall through the cracks if left. I reported this to one of the elders and asked him to relate it to the others. I believed this was the ethical way to approach it. If they had disagreed they could have stopped my check.
Anyway, another book. Sorry about that. This is just a subject I'm passionate about.
Circumstances vary, but scriptures always apply; the ongoing challenge is their proper application by all.
Elders should know the most about scriptures and how to apply them. Regardless, in today's institutional church model, elders rule; they hire and fire. So, if there is a firing problem, it was first a hiring problem. No minister should ever be hired who is not "coachable" and ready for developmental guidance no matter how talented when hired. Hires made without that assessment may become decisions they'll regret.
All members should understand the pastoral role of elders. Shepherds (plural) are supposed to be approachable so that their flock can bring them problems, e.g. alleged ungodly behavior by other members which includes ministers. Not every member has the spiritual courage to approach alleged sinners; elders must sort out facts and help resolve allegations one way or another. Such situations are teaching and learning opportunities. If the elders don't become involved with helping resolve potential Matthew 18 situations, then spritual predators may freedly decimate their flock.
Verified problems warrant action. Elders must take scripturally mandated actions once facts are supported by convincing evidence. Elders should typically be involved as witnesses before bringing the facts to the whole church. Public accountability is not a threatened bargaining chip, it's part of God's disciplinary proceeding to confront and hopefully restore someone whose sin is beyond dispute.
Is it necessary to discuss scriptures violated in such circumstances, e.g. divisive, insubordinate, self-willed, lovers of themselves and money rather than God, etc.?
Such situations challenge a mature, spiritual eldership to correctly apply scripture to protect its flock. Just as no eldership should be in the business of trying to oversee another congregation, no eldership can avoid the responsibility for shepherding its own.
I find this disturbing on several levels. I will start by saying, I tried to read the post alluded to about a team approach. The link did not work. I would like to give you tjhe benefit of the doubt. I beleive wholeheartedly in shepherds. But, the sound of all of this is a business model. Elder / Shepherds are not a board of directors in the Bible. This business of hiring and firing is so much business. Could it hurt a business (church) to have a fired employee start a new business? Yes, but unless you have them sign a no compete contract they can and many times do go out and start a new business. NONE of this sounds like the Church Christ died for. Maybe the community needs a new and more genuine expression of the Body of Christ.
James wrote,
Thanks. I fixed it. Please try it again.
Jay,
thank you for fixing the link. Respectfully, “we’ve been taught the preachers are below the elders on the organizational chart, and they are” is one of the problems. They are all supposed to be on the same team. Sports teams where there is a star or two are not the best ones. They may “win” because they have trained themselves to work to feed the one or two players system. That is team work of sorts but is not the ideal team.
I heard something recently about the unhealthy approach to leadership within the church of christ. I have heard it for years. I have tried to give the benefit of the doubt. But, it is clear there is a wholesale belief in this over under thing and it is alot of what is killing your churches. Power and control issues are such a destructive thing. imho
I’ve benefitted from this discussion and I thank the brothers who have participated.
I may not be the beneficiary of all knowledge, and there are certainly exceptions, but many times a good minister is fired, not for moral lapses or for unScriptural leanings. SOME of the time they get fired because they got on the wrong side of an individual or group. Sometimes they are so out of the loop that this comes as a complete surprise.
I believe that an elderSHIP has the right to bring in the man they believe will do the best job of helping them feed the flock. I also believe that sometimes the situations change and the man who was good is no longer effective. However, how many of the problems churches face could be solved if the eldership saw the staff as co-workers on the same team?
After I had received an agreement to meet in the elders meetings, I was told I could not attend after about six months. (Their reasoning was, “You’re not an elder.” ) It took 8 years to get back into the meetings. Then I attended all the meetings up until my dismissal. At none of those meetings did I know that they were considering dismissing me. The problems we discussed were all skin deep. So, is it any wonder when things like this happen, ministers wonder whether the people they are leaving behind are in the best shepherding hands and are tempted to start over with a newer congregation in the same town? I’m not saying it is a valid reason, but when someone is fired it takes a lot of prayer and support to be rational.
Well, another book. 😉 What I’m saying, in a very long winded way, is that the issue of a preacher starting a new congregation would become more of a moot point with better communication and less “protecting of turf”.
I hope my questions are too far off-topic. I don't think they are, but feel free to ignore them if you think they are.
(1.) Does anyone know of any statistics (or even just an idea) about whether the traditional church of christ church structure–each congregation is autonomous over itself–tends to lead to move "inter-community" splits than other, more hierarchical forms of church organization? It would seem that the problem would be lessened if an authoritative body existed above each congregation. (Of course, I'm not denying that other problems wouldn't arise from such a church body; nor am I denying that such an organization might be unscriptural.)
(2.) A few years ago, when I was still an undergraduate, I asked one of the elders at my congregation why he thought the Churches of Christ should have a congregationalist structure. I wasn't challenging him, I was genuinely asking. I asked him about Titus: Paul tells Titus to appoint the elders over cities. Only if you think that the Cretan cities had one congregation could you take this as a congregationalist approach, but Romans 16 seems to imply that some cities had more than one congregation.
(But there is also the verse in Acts where the elders were appointed over each congregation. But this too hinges on whether there was one congregation in each city or not.)
Micah,
It's true that elders were appointed by evangelists in NT times. The evangelists is not, however, the functional equivalent of a located minister. Rather, he's more like a missionary involved in the planting a new church. Paul and Timothy, for example, moved from church to church in fairly short order.
Churches with a congregational polity, such as Restoration Movement churches, Baptists, most community churches, and many others, necessarily hire and fire their own preachers.
Churches with episcopal polity, such as the Catholics and Methodists, have the pastor/priest/preacher appointed by the bishop for their diocese, with different denominations appointing bishops by various means.
There are other structures as well, some quite complex, but this is enough to make the point.
Both structures have had plenty of splits over the years. But congregational structures have more, I'm sure, for at least two reasons.
First, there's no doctrinal commitment to the authority of the bishop or other denominational authority. This can be good (fewer splits, more uniformity) or bad (entire denominations go bad when the headquarter go bad) — there are lots of examples.
Second, the denomination typically owns the building and the bank accounts, meaning that leaving is expensive. For this reason, some Episcopalians are reluctant to leave the denomination despite the ordination of Gene Robinson. (I've talked to quite a few), although many have left despite the issue. Nonetheless, the uniformity is sometimes enforced quite ruthlessly.
And so, in the practical terms in which you ask the question, it's kind of an eggs in one basket issue — denominational structures can create more uniformity but it can be uniformly good or bad.
Moreover, hierarchical denominations tends to be very slow to change and so to respond to a changing culture. Hence, the emerging movement could never have been birthed in most denominations and most of their leaders would never join a denomination for fear of not being able to change again the next time it become necessary.
Micah,
Re your last comment, see /2007/10/09/regarding-the-o…
I agree that the early church generally had only one eldership per city. But they had splits, too.
To several readers who've commented here and by email —
It seems to me that the starting point just has to be: how should Godly, wise, and holy men handle the termination of a minister?
But we have to recognize that elders aren't always going to make wise and Godly decisions. And this is handled either of two ways.
If good elders make a stupid mistake (and we've all done it!), we don't throw out the men or the system. Rather, we work together to learn from the mistake and get better. No system is going to prevent all mistakes.
But if the elders aren't good elders, the church needs to get rid of the bad ones and appoint some good ones. That, obviously, is not so easy, but it's a problem that needs to be addressed head on, rather than trying to finesse by denying elders the authority to hire and fire or by building a system based on a low view of elders.
The fact is that two of the greatest failings of Churches of Christ is our non-existent training of elders and our inability to make them accountable — treating them rather like federal judges with lifetime appointments no matter how awful they are at their jobs.
I'll try to address that question in a future post. In the meantime, suggestions on how to solve the problem of bad elders being elders for life would be welcome. For that matter, suggestions on how to train our elders would be welcome, too.
Thanks for the quick response. My estimations of the two church structure largely mirrors yours; I won't get into any differences in opinion because they are minor and off-topic.
Two quick comments:
(1) You said that hierarchical structures are sometimes slow to change and hence fail to respond to the changes in cultures. The pre-communist Eastern Orthodox churches are an interesting study in a hierarchical church structure that was adept at responding to other cultures. After the communist revolutions in many of the eastern countries, the immigrants who were forced to move tried to hold onto their cultures. One way they did this was through their churches, so the Orthodox church in many western countries, esp. the USA, haven't adjusted to the culture very well. So, there is much left to be desired there. But before many of these troubles they would often adapt their traditions to the cultures they evangelized (the Inuits, for example).
Anyway, the structure of the Orthodox churches is a complex subject, partly because they are not as hierarchical (should I say "dogmatically hierarchical"?) like the Catholics are. They don't have a "set" structure, and so the structures within different branches are sometimes quite different. I am not suggesting it is an optimal structure either, but I thought I'd just mention it because there structure differs from many of the hierarchical churches we are familiar with.
But as far as being slow to change, they are *very* slow to change when it comes to issues of dogma (and they have much less dogma than many people perceive–they are not as similar to the Catholics as is often assumed).
Anyway, an accessible and well-respected introduction to this is Kallistos Ware's *The Orthodox Church*
(2) The early Alexandrian church (early as in 2nd to 3rd century, so they're not a NT example) appears to have had the structure of largely autonomous congregations who elected a bishop. So, they retained much independence, but apparently not all of their independence. But I mention them because they did have multiple congregations in the city, with and eldership over each congregation, but a city-wide government over these independent congregations. However, the Alexandrian churches had many problems with in-fighting. Here is an interesting quotation about them, though.
"The structure of early Alexandrian Christianity was probably much more akin to the situation in Rome, with various groups gathering around fairly independent teachers….Jerome suggests that it was the custom, until the mid-third century, for the presbyters of the various communities in Alexandria to elect on from their own ranks to receive a 'higher position as bishop'." John Behr, *The Way to Nicaea*, 163-4
_______
Sorry for taking up time and space with seemingly off-topic remarks. The post made me wonder about the comparative merits of the two church systems.
On a much more simple note. When we lived in Conway the church there unjustly fired a minister. We went to visit him and his family. He said that he would simply start a new church. So we helped. It was one of the best things that ever happened. The church grew by making disciples of all people right around us not by sucking up members from other congregations. We were accused of being a competing church but the truth was is that none of the area cofC's were reaching any of the people we were, so we were not competing for their members even though several families saw something wonderful and wanted to serve along side and came over. They came to serve not to be served and I don't have any problem stealing sheep like that. Did it before and will probably do it again.
Now about starting an actual competing church. The late Cline Paden once told me when I was young that "You had better be careful when you go sheep stealing because you may wind up with just an old goat".
On the Biblical roles of the evangelist – Titus was indeed a missionary responsible for church panting in Crete (to use modern parlance). Timothy on the otherhand was analogous to the modern situated pulpit/senior minister. He was sent to a place with an established congregational structure and an existing eldership (according to Acts 20) and told how to proceed within that framework. According to church history he remained there for some 30 years.
I do believe (and write my personal job evals based upon that belief) that 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are the instructions that modern ministers should follow. Their role is one of submission to the established eldership while discipling the next group of elders and holding all (including self) accountable for sin issues under the Word.
1. I'd push for a Traditional Town Meeting, corporation, or parliament style of government for the local church. The members would be the citizens, the stockholders, or the members of parliament. The elders would be selectmen, officers, or cabinet ministers(government).
2. I'm all for competition. If a local congregation is weak, someone is going to take it out. There are Baptist churches in various guises ready to do the job. We shouldn't wait. Or if Christians wish to go at it differently, they should have that freedom.
I appreciate all the comment on the subjects of eldership and ministers.
There is a problem with our current minister. He doesn't have bible knowledge, or training. He down load sermons from the internet and pass them out to us as his own. He preaches like denominational preachers on pulpit. He sleeps while at work in the church building. He is not interested in reaching out in the community. His wife is not involve in the church. One of his sons is on probation for burglary. More than half the members want him to be removed, but the elders are refusing to remove him; stating there is no scripture bases, unless he committed adultry. I am shocked that these things are happening in the church of christ. If a preacher is not doing his job why can't he be fired? The members are helpless because the elders are in control. I don't think that is what Christ wanted his church to be run. This preacher refuses to leave the position and says members can't fire him.
I would like your views on this….Thank you.
Sue,
This is a tough one. In Church of Christ theology, the minister serves at the pleasure of the elders. There are no scriptural rules prohibiting the firing of a man who is performing poorly. I mean, the church isn't married to him — which is what this sounds like. And he's not an elder or deacon, and so those rules don't apply either.
I've never heard of an eldership taking such a position — not in any denomination.
Unfortunately, we have no doctrine as to how to remove bad elders. Normally, the best course of action is for those families who are concerned to meet with the elders and ask that they explain themselves on Biblical grounds.
Readers, any other suggestions?
I agree.
The preacher serves "at will" and can be asked/told to leave at the discretion of the elders.
A little discipline, as Jay suggests, might solve the problem, but experience might suggest such is unlikely.
Members, like preachers, aren't married to the congregation either. They are "at will" as well. If problems persist, members have the option of leaving.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
Dear Friend in Christ:
Greetings in the most precious name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I just visited your website and we rejoice in the faithfulness of your ministry
in bringing the gospel to all nations, as commanded by our Lord. This is also
the goal of our organization, Paigaam Ministries Pakistan, an indigenous Christian missionary organization in Punjab, Pakistan.
“Paigaam” means “message,” and our mission is to preach the gospel message to all creatures, as commanded in Mark 16:15.
Over the past nine years, Paigaam has had the privilege of bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to regions of Pakistan that have never heard the message. We use a variety of methods including open air prayer meetings, daily/weekly/monthly Bibles studies, tract evangelism, free Bibles distribution, children program, emergency aid, and even a program for the deaf. We also have an audio studio that can produce quality Christian radio programs in the Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi, Pashto, Siraiki, Marwari and Hindko languages. We can also provide translation of Christian books in these languages.
I will be visiting USA during the months of Jan-Feb 2012 to introduce my organization to the people who may be interested in the work we are doing for the Lord in Pakistan. Since I will be in your country, I would very much like the opportunity to meet you and tell you about our work.
If you would like, I would also be happy to speak at your church about conditions facing the church in Pakistan. Please let me know when you are available so I can meet you. It is probably easiest to reach me by email me at [email protected] or by phone at +92-321-6617428.
Many blessings in Christ Jesus,
Pastor Shehbaz Jalal, Founder
Paigaam Ministries Pakistan
http://www.paigaam.org