A Matter of Ministerial Ethics: Going, Staying and Leaving

A Matter of Ministerial Ethics: Going, Staying and Leaving
By Burton H. Patterson,
Attorney, Southlake, TX

            In all professions opportunities come to leave one position and move to another. Leaving is not always voluntary. The first experience mankind had to leave was a time of sorrow for all humanity. God instructed Adam to leave the Garden of Eden. When God instructed Abraham to leave Ur it could have been a time of joy or one of sorrow. The good book does not tell us about Sarah’s relationship with her neighbors or whether Abraham was a well-liked member of the society in which he lived. It is unknown whether it was a good time for him to leave or not, but certainly it took a lot of preparation.

            In the case of Adam there were no ethical considerations. God indicated what would be done and Adam had no choice but to obey. Adam could not have stayed. Abraham, on the other hand, could have decided to stay. If Abraham had decided not to go he would have taken action directly opposed to the will of God which in theological language is called sin. Going, for Abraham, was the only ethical decision he could make since it was the will of God for him to go.

            There are times when leaving is against the will of God. Elijah fled Jezebel and finally God had to ask him, “What are you doing here?” He should have stayed but left. God permitted him to leave but was displeased with his action. A more thought-provoking biblical example is God’s instruction to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Knowing he was being sent to murder his son, should Abraham have gone?

            It is unknown whether John Mark wanted to leave the first recorded missionary journey and one can only speculate on the consequences if he had stayed. Certainly it parted the great Barnabas from the upstart Paul. What were the ethics involved in his going on the journey, or his failure to stay or his leaving? If you know the ethical answer to whether Abraham should have taken his son to a specific place to kill him, or understand all the ethical considerations in the interplay between Barnabas and Paul over John Mark, you will have no difficulty in determining the ethical considerations which must be considered when a minister is faced with a call to another position or the consequences of staying in the current position.

            This article deals with some of the ethical challenges inherent in a free-church which is radically committed to the autonomy of the local church. Synodical churches are relieved of many of the problems outlined below since theoretically the appropriate bishop knows the peculiarities of both the priests and congregations within the diocese.

            The “call” to another place of leadership generally starts with a committee visitation to hear the quality of preaching. Prior to the visitation the committee most probably will have requested and received letters from individuals, both in and out of denominational life, recommending (or not recommending) the individual. Such letters frequently will state as much as is possible from a positive standpoint, and as few negative things as honesty allows.[1]

The committee will visit the candidate’s church to hear him preach. This may or may not be surreptitious.[2] Assuming the committee has given advance notification of their attendance on a particular Sunday, what ethical considerations must be given to the message preached that day? Should the candidate pull out one of his “sugar sticks” which he has preached a dozen times in various revivals? Should he repeat one of his “stem winders” from a prior pulpit which his current congregation has not heard? Should he just preach his normal run of the mill sermon? What are his obligations to the congregation which is considering him through their agent, the Pulpit Committee?[3]

            Since in rare exceptions, the God of Israel and the God of Christianity have identical modus operandi, the rule explained by an orthodox Jewish congregant[4] is operative within the Christian tradition. With this knowledge the candidate surely recognizes that God needs his help in accomplishing the move. Thus it would be incumbent on the candidate to put his best foot forward in bowling over the committee with his homiletical skills. But is doing so ethical? The congregation is looking for a preacher for the long term and anything which would mislead them to think they were getting something other than what they really were getting would seem to cross the line.

            After the committee has heard the candidate on several occasions and has settled on the candidate for further consideration, there probably will be a meeting between the committee and the candidate in which each explore the position to be filled. The candidate gives background information about himself and the committee gives background information about the church. Here again there is a major ethical question on how much information should be given. Some specific examples illustrate the challenge.

            Example 1. The large downtown church, during the past two years, has experienced significant growth. Attendance is up 20% and giving is up 30%. The committee is quick to share these statistics but fails to note the reason: two fairly large churches in the same city have gone from “traditional” to “praise” worship and the increase in membership and giving has come from a significant number of older couples moving to a church which provided a worship service with which they were comfortable. The committee also fails to disclose the lower than average ratio of children and young adults to total membership or that the average age of the membership is over 50 and continues to increase annually.

            Example 2. The large church shows significant strength but the committee fails to disclose that “ministerial mathematics” have been used to maintain the strength of the statistics. Several of the larger adult departments have a number of “telephone teachers” who call all the shut–ins and chronic non–attenders on Sunday morning. These “teachers” read the scripture which will be studied in Sunday school, give a brief précis of the lesson, have a short prayer, and count them as having attended. Also, the prior pastor did a lot of visitation in the local county jail and frequently preached at the local rescue mission. The large number of converts, most of which he baptized, all were properly noted in the church records as “decisions for Jesus” even though he had baptized some of the same individuals several times.

            Example 3. The church has an exceptionally high debt to income ratio and has been having difficulty in making its mortgage payments. The candidate fails to ask about the church’s debt and the committee conveniently fails to mention it as a current challenge which a new pastor will have to face.

            Example 4. The church is embroiled a significant divergence of opinion on any one of a number of issues, such as: Some may want to move the church’s physical location from a deteriorating part of town to a new large growing suburb. Some may want to stay and become ministers of a social gospel to the community around them which is undergoing significant change toward a lower economic status. Some in the church desire to increase the role of women in the visible ministry while others are fighting this philosophy tooth and nail. Whatever issue is causing the turmoil, the committee fails to bring the internal challenges to the candidate’s attention.

            Example 5. The candidate has been living a clean life in his current place of service, but had to leave the prior pastorate before facing an explanation of charges against him of a serious moral nature. In the committee questioning about any prior difficulties the candidate had experienced which might be an impediment to his ministry this sordid chapter of his life is not disclosed.

            Example 6. The candidate has held himself out as “Dr.” when in fact his “doctorate” is from a mail order institution which gave him credit for ten years of ministry toward such degree thus permitting him to complete his studies by the payment of several thousand dollars in graduation fees. In reviewing his educational background the quality of his education is withheld from the committee which has little knowledge about such things.

            Example 7. The committee is from a church which has a reputation for somewhat moderate views on some issues. The candidate is a strict five point Calvinist who knows that his views would conflict with some of the church’s well know staunch supporters whose views had been aired at various conventions. The candidate fails to tell the committee of the potential for a conflict between his views and those of some vocal members of their church.

            Example 8. The candidate personally holds rather liberal views for his denomination but in questioning about his theological orthodoxy fails to point out where his views would not dovetail with the prevailing view of the denomination.

            In each of the examples above it should be clear that the failure either of the committee or the candidate to be honest can have great future repercussions. The candidate may be called to the larger synagogue with the larger salary only to find that the church, having been mislead about his pulpit ability, moral consistency, administrative capacity or theological persuasion may be forced to take action which will be harmful to his reputation and that of God’s church.

            Another possibility is that a worthy man of God may find himself, from no fault of his own, in a boiling kettle of fish from which he cannot extract himself without serious damage to his reputation as a pastor and administrator.

            It probably would be wise for the committee to give the candidate the address and telephone number of the prior pastor and indicate to the candidate he would be wise to converse with the departed minister before making any decisions.

            Often the committee will request a résumé. Frequently these tend not to delineate any damaging information which should be disclosed. In both cases any misdirection of the committee by proffering misleading data which keeps the committee from having a clear picture of the candidate, would constitute both dishonest and deception which by definition would be unethical conduct. “To be called as a pastor of a large, prestigious church is the goal that has led many good ministers to sacrifice their integrity on the altar of success” [5] in the preparation of a résumé for a pulpit committee. Such a résumé reveals the character of the candidate and “character is basic to all ethical decisions.”[6]

            Both the candidate and the committee easily can rationalize their failure to give adequate information, either by telling only part of the story or not being forthcoming with relevant data. Dietrick Bonhoeffer, in dealing with truth telling, stated “ ‘telling the truth’ means something different according to the particular situation in which one stands. Account must be taken of one’s relationship at each particular time.”[7] Bonhoeffer recognizes that within each situational relationship statements could be truthful or not truthful when in other situations the opposite would be true of the same statement. However, he goes on to state, “The concept of living truth is dangerous, and it gives rise to the suspicion that the truth can and may be adapted to each particular situation in a way which completely destroys the idea of truth and narrows the gap between truth and falsehood, so that the two become indistinguishable.[8]

            One additional concept needs to be considered in the “going” section of this paper. Historically there have been three professions: ministry, medicine and law. Those in the profession of medicine and law have codes of ethical conduct which prohibit them from accepting an engagement that is beyond their capacity. A podiatrist will not accept a patient for heart surgery. A tax lawyer will not accept a client with a labor law problem. Likewise a minister should not permit his name to be considered for a position for which he does not have the competence, training or experience to fulfill the expectations of the position. Unfortunately candidates for positions several steps up the ladder of success do not recognize this particular ethic and end up in positions in which they have little capacity for success because of the lack of experience, knowledge or skills necessary for the position.

            The ethics of “going,” being of such great importance, cannot be minimized or sloughed over. Both the candidate and the committee must be totally transparent about all facts which might have an impact on the other’s decision. To do less would be unethical.[9] The deliberate deception by or of either the candidate or the committee, to the detriment of the other, must be considered unethical.

            The ethics of staying are just as complicated as the initial call. Some pastors stay forever and others start looking for their next pastorate the week after they move their library into their new place of service. The principal test of staying should be whether God is blessing the ministry—an indicator of God’s will. This does not necessarily mean growth. Mother Nature sometimes grows tall oak trees from which large overhanging boughs grow beyond the center of gravity which the root system can support. When this happens the tree will fall of its own weight. There are times when growth is not the congregation’s summum bonum nor the appropriate measure of God’s blessing. But whatever the appropriate yardstick in a particular ministry, if God is not blessing the work, it most probably is time for a change in pastoral leadership. In this regard it should be noted that all changes in pastoral leadership do not necessarily mean a change in the individual holding the position. Sometimes it means a change of outlook which must be wrought within the minister himself. Some examples illustrate this postulation.

            Example 1. The church is experiencing a significant and substantial drop in preaching attendance while the Sunday school attendance and number of congregants at other functions remains the same as it has been. It is obvious that many church members do not desire to hear the pastor’s sermons.

            Example 2. The pastor finds his interaction with both the community and his flock to be a distasteful part of his job. He no longer finds any joy in visiting the lost, the sick or the shut-ins. With no joy in his heart he has a difficult time interacting on a positive wave length with the more aggressive members of this flock. This condition, when combined with the situation in Example 1, is called, at least in West Texas, “hoof and mouth disease” and describes a pastor who cannot preach and will not visit.

            Example 3. The church vision is stagnant. The same programs continue with no new revelation from senior leadership for any change to increase the impact of the church for the kingdom of God. The pastor surveys the flock and his field and has no visualization of any change or program which would better either. This pastor possibly has “burned out” in the present location.

            Example 4. There is conflict between the pastor and members of his staff over the direction in which the church is being led. If this conflict is with multiple members of the staff, and particularly if such staff members have sufficient longevity and longer tenure in the church than the pastor, there is the making of a church split.

            Example 5. Various factions of members are beginning to battle over some aspect of either worship or theology. When the “praise team” crowd wants to take over the traditional 11:00 service and the “traditionalists” rebel at even a “blended” service because they cannot stand the sound of the guitar or drums, there is the making of a church fight in which the pastor will not be permitted to sit on the sidelines. He will have to give leadership and he may be incapable of promoting peace in such a situation.

            Example 6. A theological debate breaks out between members concerning a “liquid” point of theology about which there is sufficient lack of unanimity that Baptists ought not to part company over it, such as “post/pre millennial” views or “Armenianism vs. Calvinism.” If the pastor has strong views and will have to take a stand, his alienation of a significant part of the membership may well signal the need for his departure prior to an eruption of the conflict which would be flamed by his theological stance.

            Example 7. The pastor desires to make a significant change in church polity. This might entail reducing the power of the Board of Deacons to being a Fellowship of Deacons and installing a committee system to “run the church.” It might be the other way by installing a Board of Elders thereby reducing the traditional Baptist congregational polity.

            Example 8. The prior pastor (and/or his wife), who has retired but not left the congregation, continually creates an atmosphere that makes it impossible for the new pastor to function in a leadership role. A new pastor who is second guessed and criticized at every turn will have little option but to enter into major conflict with his predecessor or leave.

            In each of the examples the pastor must in all candor pray for God’s guidance in leaving or staying. The pastor is in a fiduciary relationship to the flock. Candor is the full disclosure of all material facts. The flock has a right to know the pastor’s position and the pastor has the right to know the position of various members of his flock on any matter that might cause conflict. Failure to disclose is called ‘concealment’ and is a breach of fiduciary responsibility. To be totally ethical and to protect God’s church, the pastor must in all honesty bring the areas of conflict to the forefront with the appropriate members of the congregation. Depending on the congregation and the type of conflict this may mean sitting down with the Sunday school leadership or with the Missions or Evangelism Committee or the Deacons, etc., to reach an agreement on whether the church would be served better if the minister left or whether the matter can be solved without such drastic action.

            If God’s man determines it is God’s will that he leave, what are his ethical and fiduciary responsibilities toward the congregation that he is leaving and to the man who will follow him? Does the congregation, either in whole or in some specific grouping (such as the Deacons or a particular committee) have the right to know the actual reason?

            Would it be ethically correct for the departing pastor to leave some sage personal advice on specific problems and specific trouble makers to make the new man’s transition easier? Certainly in the business world there are exit interviews in which the reasons for departure are examined in detail so the business can learn and correct challenges. Also in the business world it is not unusual for a departing employee to be asked to prepare a detailed job description, which would go far beyond the type of description prepared by an Employee Relations Department which just lists duties, but contains a full description of pitfalls and challenges the replacement employee will face both in physical assets and interfacing employee relationships. Consider the following examples and determine the departing minister’s ethical response to each.

            Example 1. Mrs. Hotbod, who continually is in need of marital counseling about a dysfunctional marriage, always tries to set her appointments for times when there be few, if any, other staff in the office. Then she is quite suggestive in her attire and provocative language. Would some prior preparation for her need be advisable for the new man to receive from his predecessor?

            Example 2. The Youth Minister continually requested some “Praise Worship” which he felt necessary if the youth were to feel any relevance from the worship services. A compromise had been reached with two of the senior members of the church who were against the idea but capitulated if the intrusion on their traditional worship was limited to not more than four minutes of such “relevancy.” These two senior members are now deceased and few if any of the other members know of the compromise. Should the departing pastor leave it to the new man to fight this battle again, or leave him a short history of the conflict and its settlement.

            Example 3. The financial administration of the church lacks a lot to be desired. Over the years members, who have had no confidence in the way the church has spent God’s money, have taken it on themselves to determine the church’s ministries by designating their contributions and tithes. Personal counseling has been somewhat successful in getting these contributors to see the wisdom of letting the church, thorough its committees, make the decisions instead of having the church’s mission determined by contributors who understands the meaning of the golden rule, i.e., those who have the gold make the rules. Should the departing man of God outline the challenge and the movement toward solution which has occurred during his watch?

            Example 4. One of the founders of the church had been the church treasurer since its inception. Previously some “irregularities” were discovered in the church’s books and after a private consultation with the pastor the treasurer resigned and made a significant contribution to the building fund in an amount equivalent to the “irregularities.” The individual has continued in the church and recently was elected to a new position of leadership. It could be anticipated that a new pastor, unknowledgeable of such individual’s history, might take no action if the church were to elect such person again as the church treasurer. What, if any responsibility does a departing pastor have toward the church, the kingdom and the next pastor in this type of situation?

            Example 5. One particular two–faced member of the congregation is very regular in attendance, although contributing little or nothing financially or in service. This member takes a broad brush and butters the minister up and down every Sunday about the wonderful sermon which he has preached—and then this member goes home and writes some of the most vicious dribble imaginable about the horrible sermon and theological mistakes made. This member’s blog never has considered honesty or truthfulness a virtue and the material published on the blog is both libelous and actionable. The departing minister wishes he had taken a firm stand the first week of his ministry and counseled such person with a firm commitment to take the matter first before the church and then to court if it continued. Should this matter be brought to whoever follows him before such individual preaches his first sermon?

            Example 6. The church’s education building is fifteen years old. The original paint, carpet, etc. lasted about ten years after which the church decided to update and renovate it. One of the church’s active members was a contractor. He gave the church a very low bid and the entire congregation thought he was doing God a great service in renovating the building so inexpensively. In reality he renovated it very cheaply.  The church is preparing to do another renovation and the same member expects to be the low bidder and do another cheap job for the church. Should the departing minister just leave this to God’s hands, knowing the church will again award the bid to a member who in all probability will again do a cheap job?

            The foregoing examples should indicate ethical questions which arise on leaving are significantly greater that those on going and staying. Decision made in the going or staying categories concern the minister himself and the body of believers to which he is considering going to or staying with. In moving to the ethics of leaving a third person is being interjected—a future minister, probably unknown at the time the decision must be made. Of course, the decision on making some disclosures can be made after the church calls a new minister.[10]

            One solution for the challenge is by having the church adopt a policy requiring a departing minister to prepare written information for the next pastor which the departing minister feels appropriate. Such church policy should require the information to be held in strict confidence between the two ministers and either sealed and delivered by the personnel committee to the new minister or delivered directly from the departing to the arriving minister.

            Whether a minister goes, stays or leaves can have long lasting consequences and all actions taken by the minister and the congregation (and any committee acting as their agent) needs to be beyond ethical reproach. To be otherwise would be a disservice to the Lord and His Kingdom.

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us