Introduction

On July 26^th, 2020, I was voted in unanimously by New Life Baptist Church, a small, rural Southern Baptist church as the next Senior Pastor of that church. The interim preacher who was filling in for that church at the time remarked that in the 40 years of doing ministry, he had never seen a pastor voted in unanimously. It was an exciting time in my life and having that unanimous vote felt like I had the wind at my back. Cut to three years later, the congregation voted unanimously to approve my severance package after a tumultuous eight months or so. I was not fired, but I did not want to resign. However, I knew that if I stayed on, the church would continue down the path to a split. I have since moved on to another pastoral position at a different church, but that situation left me with a nagging question: How does one go from a unanimous vote to leaving with his tail tucked between his legs in defeat just three years later?

The problem of hiring pastors that then leave after a couple of years is not unique to me- it is widespread among Southern Baptist churches and among churches that do not have a bishopric hierarchy. A poorly implemented hiring process can lead to tension between minister and congregation, stagnation of spiritual and numerical growth of the church, moral failure of the pastor, and burnout that leads to pastors quitting, getting fired, or leaving the ministry permanently. It is the goal of this research paper to show how the implementation of Biblical principles regarding the duties and expectations of the pastor and the duties and expectations of the congregation, as well as practical concerns during the hiring process can help alleviate some of the aforementioned problems and give the necessary space to cultivate long-term ministry success for the pastor and the church.

Pastor Turnover: A Widespread Problem

The average tenure of a pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention is around 3.6 years. Compare that with a recent Harvard study that showed that the average tenure of a CEO is around 7.2 years.[1] To make matters worse, the effective tenure of a pastor might be even shorter. The pastor has proverbially "left the building" long before he submits his resignation. Statistics might illustrate that the average tenure could technically be 1.5 years.[2]  When a tenure is that short for a position that could potentially last twenty or more years, questions should arise. I believe when the right questions are asked about why the revolving door of pastors continues in churches, what we will end up with is all signs pointing back to the interview process. This is true regardless of resignation or termination.

            Matthew Steen, co-founder of Chemistry Staffing, a staffing company that specializes in filling ministry positions, described the pastor hiring process being like dating and marriage. When you first go on a date with someone, you put your best foot forward. You tell your best stories and jokes and you highlight your strengths. You downplay your weaknesses or couch them in terms of what you learned from them or how they made you better. You certainly don’t talk about past broken relationships and any hurt you might have to suffer from them. You only introduce your boyfriend or girlfriend to your family when you feel comfortable doing so since family members are unpredictable and might reveal an unsightly side of you. Then, when you get married you have no choice but to let your significant other see the hidden parts—the “real you”. Sometimes there aren’t a lot of surprises and any differences are ones you can work through, but sometimes the differences are too great and insurmountable. The same can be said of hiring a pastor. When a secular company hires an employee, they are looking for work experience and compatible skill set. Hiring a pastor is much more involved than that. You must become familiar with the character of that pastor, his private life, and his family. It is far more than a good resume and a good skill set. “We have several factors we look for in determining a good fit for a church. One of those is skill set. When churches go sideways is when they focus just on skill set and ignore the rest.”[3]

      On the one hand, the blame for an early, unforeseen departure can be laid on the search committee or the general membership of the church. On the other hand, it can be laid on the minister. This all depends on the context of the situation. In their book, When Bad Churches Happen to Good Pastors, David and Lisa Frisbie surveyed one church’s history that revealed they went through 13 ministers in 30 years.[4] A couple of the pastors lasted less than a year and the longest tenure was the most recent pastor who stayed for four years. Some of the pastors that came and went were there for dubious reasons or unclear motivation and direction. Others were there with good intentions, but the lack of proper vetting coupled with unreasonable expectations meant that pastor was not going to last long.

            It is important to recognize the fact that some churches sometimes just end up with bad apples. I personally was a replacement for a pastor who was fired because of moral failure. This happened to me twice in different churches. In other situations, a pastor might treat a church as a steppingstone as he climbs the “corporate ladder” of ministry. However, these reasons are usually in the minority. More often it is either the culture of the church that is to blame or the blame can be shared equally between pastor and church. As Dr. Thom Rainer points out in his research over the decades, the top reasons why pastors leave in their third year are as follows:

1. Dreams go unfulfilled – Both for the church and the pastor
2. Green grass syndrome: A pastor sees “better” opportunities beyond the current ministry. Sometimes it’s more “dead grass” syndrome where the pastor sees no future with the current situation and thinks anything is better than the current thing.
3. Betrayal: when true friends (or not) show themselves which leads to broken, irreparable relationships.
4. Reluctance for the church to leave the golden years (years where they were happiest or most successful) and embrace change.
5. Lack of clear expectations[5]

Every book and article in my research that mentions reasons why a pastor leaves or is forced out, give some variation of the above-mentioned reasons as to why they leave. All these issues can be addressed before and during the hiring process. No process is perfect and even under the best circumstances, it still might not work out. But, with the research showing that the average tenure being as short as it is, these issues are not being addressed. Furthermore, regardless of who is at fault, addressing these issues will benefit the pastor and the church. So, what are the issues?

Problems with the Typical Search Process and the Fallout it Produces

            One of the main problems with the modern-day search committee is that it insists on representation as its core team building value before anything else is considered. It is a presupposition, assumed without question, in most Baptist churches . Author of Nine Marks of a Health Church, Mark Dever said, “The basic problem with search committees is that they are typically built to do the wrong thing. They’re built on principle—again, typically, not always—to represent different portions of the congregation in the process of finding a pastor. And it makes sense that corporate-minded, democratic Westerners would think this way, doesn’t it!”[6]  Michele Huneven wrote a book based on her experience on a pastor search committee. Describing the search committee, she said, “Eight members were selected for the committee. Four men, four women. One half-Filipino, one Latina, and one African-American man. We had at least one person per adult decade bringing the total to 7 different age groups. We were pleased with the level of representation.”[7]

            When you start off with representation as a given, then it will be those factional forces that will be the main driving force in all the decision-making in selecting a pastor. Furthermore, it sets the precedent and expectations for the pastor once he is hired. This is conventional wisdom at work and while on the surface it makes sense, it can be damaging to the church in the long-run. Members who are selected might be good representatives of their demographic or ministry, but they might not be among the wisest in the church or they might not have an adequate Bible knowledge base. Furthermore, they might come with a mandate from their in-church tribe or worse, an axe to grind.

            Another problem with search committees is the lack of Biblical and practical training that a search committee needs to have. This is especially problematic in denominations and independent churches that do not have a hierarchy of bishops or superintendents—the kind of churches that treasure local church autonomy. So, who is supposed to train a search committee? The pastor, of course! He is the shepherd and teacher of the church. He should be the one preparing the church for his departure. Unfortunately, most pastors do not think about their departure until it is too late. They are not going to start off the job they just acquired as pastor thinking “How am I going to prepare the church for my eventual departure?” But, by failing to train their church how to prepare for such an eventuality, they leave the next search committee with only one of three options: train themselves, look to an outside source to train them, or simply “go with what they’ve got” and not seek any in-depth training. Under-trained or improperly trained committee members can have disastrous results.

            Another problem emerges with under-trained members that becomes a problem of its own. Search committees tend to carry with them emotions, trauma, and nostalgia/fondness from the former pastor to the new pastor. This creates unfair, unbiblical, and many times unseen expectations on the new pastor. Often it creates an unnatural bias in selecting top candidates. Jim Richards said, “How the last pastor left is going to reflect on the next pastor. Too often I’ve seen searches following a moral failure lead a church to call a pastor who is the direct antithesis of their outgoing pastor. It’s a natural inclination that sounds something like, ‘Well we don’t want to go through that again, so let’s hire someone completely different.’”[8] Those expectations might not have started with a previous pastor. It might be because of other influences in the church. But, every church has them and unless that church comes face to face with their own hidden biases, agendas, and even outright rebellion and sin, then the next pastor will continue to shoulder the burden that come with those expectations.

            When the two concerns mentioned above (representation and unseen expectations) are at the forefront when a committee finally meets with candidates, Biblical requirements such as character, doctrine, and family  can get unintentionally sidelined. The church might be hiring someone who satisfies the quirky or obtuse preferences of the congregation but lacks in the areas that will matter to the church in the long run and that can be dangerous to the health of the church. Furthermore, once the honeymoon period is over, unseen expectations are dangerous to the new pastor as well.

            The honeymoon period is an important concept to understand because it will help make sense of the inevitable about-face the church will give to the new pastor. The honeymoon period refers to the amount of time the new pastor has when the congregation is relieved and elated that they finally have secured a pastor. Usually during this time, the pastor gets a free pass to try new things, preach a little more “on the nose”, make changes, etc. There is new-found energy and enthusiasm during this period and neither can do any wrong in each other’s eyes. Unfortunately, this period usually doesn’t last very long. Rainer’s research shows that what started out as a 1-2 year stretch has shrunk significantly. This era is becoming shorter and shorter. When they first started reporting the life cycle of pastors, the period lasted up to three years. It is now down to 6 months. He sees this trend as being a result of church members being fearful about their church’s future. They frequently call pastors with unrealistic expectations. It does not take long before many members realize that the expectations will not be met.[9] Richards and Wolfe further point out, “Holding on to unnecessary, outmoded expectations can translate into unfair expectations of the pastor or congregation. When pastors try to become what congregations expect, they do a disservice to the congregation. When congregations try to become what pastors expect, they also do a disservice to themselves.”[10] 

Rainer calls the next period in the new pastor’s tenure “Challenges and conflict” and said that a new pastor should expect this period to last 3-4 years. The honeymoon ends when those unfair, unbiblical, and unseen expectations go unmet. Most of the time the pastor is unaware of brewing dissent until it is too late to do anything meaningful about it.[11] This also happens to be the period when most pastors quit or are forced out.

I experienced these unseen expectations first-hand. At my last church, I ran into some financial troubles and needed to get a second job. I made sure I had written approval from the deacons and after I secured a job, I told the congregation. This job did not interfere with my church duties, but in the long run, that detail wouldn’t change any minds. What I didn’t know at the time was that 20 years ago, they had a pastor who also sought out a second job without telling the congregation first. The difference between his job and mine was mine was a 12-hour-a-week part-time side gig. His was opening a restaurant. But, that didn’t matter to a few ornery members of the church. The precedent had been set. I had broken an unwritten rule of the church that had long remained dormant. When this became known during a church business meeting one Sunday, it came as a surprise to me and the ensuing debate blew up in everyone’s face and caused what I now believe to be an irreparable rift between me and certain members. Another unfair, unseen expectation going unmet. It was the beginning of the end and six months later, I resigned.

            The spiritual and emotional damage from these conflicts can last for years. One pastor David Frisbie interviewed for a case study said that after he left his church following a short, tumultuous tenure, he would get panic attacks and physically tremble at the mention of the issues he had at the previous church. It took him six years to get past the physical symptoms that manifested itself due to the trauma it caused.[12] The reason for the conflict—at least publicly—was that the pastor was preaching heresy. He wasn’t, according to him, but his best guess was that those same people had wanted him gone for awhile and wanted to supplant him with a new pastor. Another pastor they interviewed never got over the shock of watching half of his elder board quit because they could not handle the scrutiny they were facing for defending the senior pastor. And still another felt the sting of betrayal when his denomination’s superintendent was brought in to settle a conflict, only for the superintendent to lay all the blame on the pastor and offer no real help to him.[13]

            Trauma from church conflict can also cause damage to the pastor’s family. One of the pastors surveyed in Frisbie’s case studies noticed that his 4-year-old boy observed how daddy wasn’t happy anymore. “When he told me that, I just lost it. My heart totally went out to him. Up until that moment I had been focused on the damage to me, the damage to my wife and my family. I hadn’t even noticed how much the key leaders and board members were also suffering, how much tension and stress they were under.”[14] Because the trauma can affect the pastor’s family, the fallout from church conflict has caused burnout and trust issues for pastors, which means the pastor will hesitate to take another church job or he will leave the ministry altogether. So, how can we stop this from happening? What does God’s word say about ending this vicious cycle?

Biblical Principles that Lead to Course Correction

            Firstly, churches must address the “need” for representation. Representation on the search committee assumes the need for the congregation to be heavily involved in the process. They do not. The search for a new pastor starts with and is lead by the current pastor. The office of pastor is described using three words in the New Testament “poimen” (pastor/shepherd), “episcopos” (overseer), and “presbuteros” (elder). 1 Peter 5:1-4 shows us that all three words can be used interchangeably. For simplicity’s sake, I will just refer to the office of pastor/shepherd. The first mention of shepherd as a guide and teacher for the people of God is found in Jeremiah 23:1-4:14. Verse 14 says, “And I will give you shepherds according to my heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.” There are two things we can glean from this passage. The first thing is that these shepherds that God set over Judah were responsible for teaching His ways to His people. The second thing is that it was God who set them over the people of Judah, not the people themselves.

            God also calls the apostles and pastors in the New Testament. Ephesians 4:11 shows us that Christ himself calls them. It starts with God and his calling. Not with the congregation. Any congregation worth its salt would agree with this statement, but it is a good reminder. The point is to show the congregation that the first, final, and sole authority of how a pastor should be selected begins and ends with the Bible. So, it makes sense that the pastor would be the one to train and prepare a congregation on the process to select a new pastor. While most churches recognize that the office of pastor comes from the Bible, the process in which a pastor is selected is often ignored or just given lip service.

Yet, the Bible does give us the process in which to select a pastor. It is to happen through pastoral succession. Unfortunately, in many of our Baptist churches, we view doctrine as having to do with our personal beliefs about God and about ourselves, but not about how God expects a church to operate. According to pastor Wes Moore, the organizational framework that God has put in place to protect and guide the church have been dismantled over the years. “The system that God himself designed for protection of the local church—its organization and polity—has been butchered to the point of sterility, and those unwise and unbiblical adjustments have led us to the brink of collapse.”[15]

This collapse can be observed in the pastor hiring process. But it doesn’t have to continue that way. Eugene Vann notes “When laity is overly involved in selecting pastors, as with the call system, by assessing the congregation, compiling a pastors' profile, searching for candidates, interviewing, examining and evaluating and hiring pastors, the laity's excessive involvement is incongruent with a biblical paradigm of God's utilizing pastors to lead the laity in this regard. Through a new pastoral theology, Baptist pastors should consider repositioning themselves with authority to lead the laity and assist with realizing who should serve as their pastors.”

This “new” pastoral theology is pastoral succession put into practice, and it has its roots in the New Testament. 2 Timothy 2:2 shows Paul entrusting Timothy to teach doctrine to the people that he once pastored. Furthermore, Timothy was charged to train men in the church to teach the word of God. The expectation here could be that some of those men would also go on to become pastors. Acts 14:23 says that the apostles appointed elders in every church. The apostles appointed them, not the congregation.

So, what is the congregation’s part in all this? There are three direct correlations between the congregation and pastoral leadership mentioned in the scripture. The first one is to recognize leadership within the congregation (Acts 6:3) and bring them forward for consideration. The second one is to hold leaders accountable, including pastors (Matt. 18:15-20). The third one is to honor and submit to their pastors (1 Tim. 5:17, 1 Pet. 5:5). There is no evidence that the congregation did the heavy lifting in finding, vetting, and confirming a pastor to a church. Congregations do have a part, but it is a support role only. While a pastor can go to a member of the congregation for advice or encouragement, it is the pastor who is the main decision-maker when it comes to selecting his successor. We do, however, find clear and persuasive evidence of pastors selecting other pastors for a church. The best example of this is found in Acts 14:23 (NIV), “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.” In short, it is pastors appointing other pastors.

A New Method: The Practical Benefits of Pastoral Succession

What does this method look like? How should the other elders of the church go about selecting the next head pastor? What happens if there aren’t a plurality of elders at a church, instead just one pastor? What if the pastor leaves suddenly and there is no pastor at all? And how does any of this help a pastor come to a church under the best conditions to find success? Let’s delve into each of these questions one at a time.

Having a plurality of elders lead the search gives a church the best chance at finding a qualified, Godly man who can be a good fit for the church. A church needs to find someone who is qualified in character, theology, and skill. The ones who are charged with the responsibility for developing those three things are the elders. So, who better to make up the search committee than the ones who are charged by God to be experts in all three areas? The elders are to teach true doctrine and to ensure false doctrine doesn’t seep into the church (Titus 1:9); they are to preach and teach God’s word on a regular basis (1 Tim. 3:2), they are to be men of Godly character and look for the same character in other elders (1 Tim. 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9; Heb. 13:7; 1 Pet. 5:3). If a congregation-led search committee was evaluating a pastoral candidate, they might very well be aware of these qualities to look for in a pastor, but they are not the one charged with the responsibility to ensure these things are of the highest standards.

Another consideration is the lived-in experience of a pastor. Pastors relate to each other and understand each other in ways that the rest of the congregation will never fully understand. Pastors understand what it means for their church life, social life, family schedule, and 9-5 job to all be wrapped up in the pastorate. They understand the unique temptations, the ebbs and flows, the joys and doubts, the importance of decisions made, and the little seen or understood assumed responsibilities of the pastorate. Other elders having intimate knowledge of these aspects of ministry can help create an environment of emotional stability, moral integrity, and strong spiritual growth in a pastor who is just starting out.

If a church doesn’t have a plurality of elders already set up in their church polity, that does not mean they cannot follow the path of pastoral succession. In this scenario, the pastor would pick his top choice or choices and, with the help of a few hand-picked congregants to help facilitate the process and act as an advisory board to the pastor, begin interviewing the top candidate. To be clear, the one leading the effort and shepherding the other committee members should still be the pastor that is presently on staff. “The pastor should always be positioning themselves with authority to lead the laity and assist with realizing who should serve as their pastors.”[16]  

In the scenario where there are no pastors present to help, which is often the case, this does not mean that the process defaults to just the congregation.  Instead, the search committee should voluntarily seek help from a board of advisory pastors that are trusted friends of the church. Assuming there is no denominational hierarchy, this board can step in and provide the necessary pastoral oversight that is so often missing from the search process. A pastor advisory board can act as gatekeepers so that harmful candidates who lack moral character, sound doctrine, or other qualifications can be weeded out much faster. They can also give their recommendations for candidates. Mark Dever remarks, “Search committees also tend to have an inordinate hunger for résumés! They’ll take hundreds! But wouldn’t it be easier and more immediately productive to get a single reference from a trusted pastor?”[17] Another avenue of finding trusted candidates is within your own congregation “We need to ask who internally can be our next pastor? Let’s start developing them. That way if we develop them and when the time [for pastoral succession] comes to hire a new pastor, they will be ready to go. And if they don’t take over, they are still ready to do ministry out in the world.”[18] Hiring from within the congregation also has the added benefit of possibly skipping the years of uncertainty and unspoken expectations being hoisted onto a new pastor since the pastor and the congregants will already be familiar with each other in a more personal way. 

According to the research Matt Steen has done at Chemistry Staffing, there are 5 things that determine if someone makes it the first 5 years:

1. Theological alignment. 
2. Church culture. 
3. Personality. 
4. Skill Set. 
5. Chemistry.
   
    

By theological alignment he means “What are the close-fisted and open-handed theological issues? What are the issues that are black and white and have no flexibility and which issues do have some room for disagreement?”  By church culture, he means “What is the leadership structure of the church? Who tends to make decisions in the church? Are there any ‘power centers’ to look out for?”  Personality means the general personality traits of the pastor and of the church, because sometimes personality quirks work well together, sometimes they don’t. Skill set refers to whether or not they can do the job. Can they preach publicly every week? Do they have a mature temperament? Do they have good bedside manners during hospital and bereavement visits? Do they have good teaching/mentoring skills? Finally, there is chemistry. Steen does not give a specific definition for “chemistry” other than “you know it when you see it. In other words, do you see yourself working alongside this pastor for the next 10 years?[19]  

While there is a lot to commend about Steen’s method, it could be fleshed out more in some areas. Chemistry is one of those areas. Burgquist, for example, addresses the issue of chemistry better by offering an Emotion Quotient survey to search committees to see how much self-understanding and understanding of others a pastor has. Someone who has high emotional intelligence would be strong in the competencies of social awareness and relationship management. This helps to avoid things like unnecessary personal offenses and an inability to “read the room” and instead increase group support within the church. Lack of emotional intelligence may display itself in some of the following ways: the desire to make everyone happy, repressed needs, hiding our true selves, burnout, and a misguided search for significance.[20] Understanding and increasing one’s emotional intelligence can help a pastor keep from having to put out a lot of fires and increasing the chances of surviving those early tumultuous years. 

Another point to add here to help the pastor in those early years is to continually and clearly articulate expectations and require leaders in the church to do the same. When any previously unseen expectation rears its ugly head, it needs to be brought to light, discussed thoroughly, prayed over, and resolved. Furthermore, there needs to be a differentiation between unseen expectations and actual, agreed-upon expectations (which are good and Biblical to have). The lay leaders in the church, whether they be elders or not, need to periodically sit down with the pastor and refresh themselves on what those expectations are. This will help the pastor and the church to keep on track and avoid piling on too many or unnecessary responsibilities as the pastor continues lengthening his tenure at the church and ministries begin to grow. 

There are many reasons to see that Southern Baptist churches need to change their pastor hiring process. There are also many encouraging signs that many churches are adopting things like plurality of elders and pastoral succession. Speaking from personal experience, I see many churches in the county in which I live start to grow tired of the revolving door of pastors. I have seen a few churches drop unnecessary and unrealistic prerequisites for a new pastor. As pastors are better trained in how to prepare a church to embrace structural change, there is far less resistance put up by these churches by which I have worked alongside in the last decade. Hopefully, this will continue in the decades to come. 

Annotations            

[1] Matthew Fretwell. “The Pastoral Search Committee Process: Broken and Ineffective” Biblical Leadership Blog. 8, September 2021. https://www.biblicalleadership.com/blogs/the-pastoral-search-committee-process-broken-and-ineffective/