When a church votes to call a pastor...

[TomVols]

How have you handled the decision making timeframe? Did you give them a decision immediately on knowing the vote, or did you take some time (and if so, how much)?

Also, I've seen many churches falsify the vote total to a candidate. They say a candidate got 100% when he only got 85%, for example. How have you verified the veracity of the vote?

 

[PastorSBC1303]

I have always given a decision immediately as in both cases I was confident of the Lord's will.

I have never done anything to verify the vote, but in the future I will give that consideration.

 

[TaterTot]

Also, I've seen many churches falsify the vote total to a candidate. They say a candidate got 100% when he only got 85%, for example. How have you verified the veracity of the vote?

Our current church told us the vote however many yes and 3 no's but that they voted to make it a unanimous vote. So... that may be how the falsification occurs.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I think generally speaking, the vote is taken with the agreement that the answer will be yes if a specified percentage is met. If the candidate has not agreed to come, then I don't think a vote should be taken.

 

[Jim1999]

I never asked for the vote count and didn't want to know it. If I knew a few voted against me, I just might try figuring out who opposed. I made application for a pastoral call once whilst still a student and it backfired on me cos a few "said" I claimed to be a graduate when graduation was only two months off. I didn't want that pastorate if 99% voted in my favour given the circumstances.

In England, pastorates were virtually appointed under the old British Baptist Union. In Canada, churches sought the advice from the Fellowship's General Secretary. Then one was invited to "preach for the call" and eventually either received the call or didn't. Most churches have in their constitution how many votes are required to issue a call. I think it was a 2/3 majority, but don't quote me.

I only had one church where I lasted 8 months and the church was glad to see me off, and I was delighted they felt that way. By the way, that church was decidedly dispensational and I was not, and they eventually made that a test of fellowship.

I think Tator is correct that memberships often vote to make the call unanimous.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[mnw]

I can't get my head around this voting to make it unanimous. So, they vote goes 98% vs. 2% and then they vote to say it was something that it wasn't?

 

[Jim1999]

Semantics my dear friend. Those two people who voted against you prolly still disagree with your coming..........

Cheers,

Jim

The best committee consists of 3: one out of town, another sick abed, and that leaves me....

 

[TomVols]

Churches like letting a pastor feel he has an overwhelming majority. Gives the pastor a sense of security. Strokes his ego. The example I gave in the OP is one from real life. A sizable portion of the church voted against this candidate, but the deacon conducting told the candidate he received a unanimous call. When the deacon was questioned about it once the cat was out of the bag a few months later when all Hades broke loose againsts this new pastor, the deacon said he asked who supported the church and all the people raised their hands. Since the pastor was going to be part of the church, that was unanimous.

Another church had a 94% vote. The pastor was told it was unanmious. A month later, the pastor was approached by people who said "Preacher, we just wanted you to know why we voted against you......" The folks who conducted the vote were questioned by the pastor and their answer was "well, those folks don't matter...." They eventually mattered...they got the pastor ran out of town.

As an aside, I've never not known a pastor search committee to lie to me. Some have been over little things. Some have been whoppers. And I can tell you some others have the same experience.

 

[TaterTot]

I can't get my head around this voting to make it unanimous. So, they vote goes 98% vs. 2% and then they vote to say it was something that it wasn't?

Yes, in our experience, the church family had its chance to expressits desire, then they agreed to go with the majority, so it could be unanimous vote.

But we knew very early on who were the naysayers, it was obvious, so it really didnt become a unanimous vote lol

 

[Tom Bryant]

How have you handled the decision making timeframe? Did you give them a decision immediately on knowing the vote, or did you take some time (and if so, how much)?

I have done it both ways. When I came here I let them know as soon as they voted to call me. In another church, after i preached, I felt so certain that I was not the man for the church that I asked them to not put my name up. They did anyway. The vote was 90% for. In light of that vote, I asked for a week to pray and reconsider. At the end of that week, I told them I couldn't come. Needless to say, they were pretty ticked, but I had warned them. The pastor who eventually came called me 6 months in and told me that I had made the right decision in not coming. :tonofbricks:

Also, I've seen many churches falsify the vote total to a candidate. They say a candidate got 100% when he only got 85%, for example. How have you verified the veracity of the vote?

I know that search teams "shade" the truth from the best of intentions. They want to believe the best about a church they love. Sometimes they don't really know the truth like the churches who are saying that they have great fellowship. What they mean is they have great fellowship among people who are like the rest of the church and give only a polite nod to those who don't conform.

So I don't try to find out what the vote was. I usually have a specific threshhold such as 90%.