When should a senior pastor be fired?

If a pastor is entitled to chose those who work with him, does that suggest that he would be also entitled to choose those who are the deacons and to choose all the members of the congregation he pastors? If a man chooses to accept the call of a congregation to be its pastor, is he not choosing to work in the ministry with all the present members of that congregation? Suggesting that a pastor should not be forced to work with the staff of a church that have been chosen by that church does not seem very different from saying a pastor should not be forced to work with the deacons that have been elected and chosen by that church. Are all the deacons supposed to resign when a new pastor comes to a church? Are church staff to work for the church or are they to work for the pastor?

You seem to have somewhat of a episcopal view of church government instead of a congregational view of church government.

 

Apples and oranges. First, with respect to deacons, they are, like the pastor, a congregational office established by the NT. The Bible clearly defines how they are selection (Acts 6). However, a pastor should have veto authority on any nomination for church office without having to give a reason. Here's why: A pastor may be in possession of some confidential information that disqualifies a man from the office of deacon. He cannot reveal it, but neither can he let that man run.

Membership is totally outside hte bounds of this discussion.

Yes, but not necessarily in their current role. He may see the need to change a SS teacher or Bible study leader. He may see other things that have been overlooked.

They are very different, for what would seem to be obvious reasons. Remember, the NT only stipulates a pastor, not assistants. The assistants are extensions of the office of pastor. A pastor should have the authority to choose his own extensions.

It depends on how the church is set up. The best way is for them to work for the church by working for the pastor. Someone has to set duties and manage day to day accountability and oversight. An assistant who thinks he works for the church and not the pastor has opportunity to resist the pastoral instruction about his duties. That, as I have said, creates a conflict of interest and is a recipe for disaster.

Not at all. I am very congregational.

 

Assuming a church has deacons ...

If you do not have deacons, you do not have to worry about this issue.

A congregational view of government does not equal a democracy. This is a hard concept for the average American to grasp.

I personally hold to a more staff led form of church government.

 

According to your understanding and argument that assistants are only extension of the pastor, that suggests that his own extensions should resign immediately and leave a church whenever the pastor leaves. Of course, I noticed that you did not say that they should immediately resign but indicated that the assistant and youth pastor, etc. should stay with the church and serve the church while the church has no "senior" pastor and while it looks for one. Then as a reward for their faithful service and loyalty to Christ and to their local church in the place (or as the part of the body) in that local body that Christ has put them in, they are to be asked to give up or forsake their ministry in that church according to wishes and feelings of a new pastor.

In my opinion, according to your view that assistant pastors, youth pastor, etc. are only
extensions of the pastor they work for, then the logical and consistent time for them to resign and leave would be the same time that the pastor, whose extension they are, resigns or leaves.

If the office of "assistant" pastor is not permitted by the Scriptures and is not a scriptural office, then those who hold that office should not be expected to meet the scriptural qualifications for the office of pastor/elder/bishop, should not be ordained
to that scriptural office, etc. Is the title "senior pastor" ["chief pastor"] anymore scriptural than the title "assistant pastor?"

Instead of the old episcopal hierarchy of ranks in the pastoral office [priest, bishop, archbishop], it seems some Baptists have in effect created a similar hierarchy of rank in
a Baptist church [youth pastor, assistant pastor, senior assistant pastor, senior pastor].

In a 1876 book that was used as a text book or manual of Baptists principles at Spurgeon's Pastors' College, John Quincy Adams listed the following as one of those principles: "The fourth feature of the reform at which Baptists aim--the establishment of the equality of Christ's disciples" with the text Matthew 23:8--One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. (BAPTISTS THOROUGH REFORMERS, p. 111).

Adams wrote: "Priestly arrogance and ministerial assumption of authority are exhibited on almost every hand, in both the Protestant and Papal churches" (p. 112).

Adams wrote: "Chief ministers! chief ministers! who are they? 'One is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren'" (p. 121).

 

My position is simple I have no problem with Godly leadership. One who is seeking the will of God. I submit to my pastor. Everything I do, I run thru him. I feel that is the biblical thing to do.

However what we are talking about is absurd. If my personality doesn't fit then I should go? That is not about leadership that is personal. I don't see anywhere in the Bible if someone's personality is what you like then fire him.

Leadership in church is more than being in charge. leadership is about empowering others. It is not making all the calls and micro managing. It is about letting others have freedom to do ministry. I lead by example. I would never have it any other way. I don't sit in an office and bark orders.

have ever had to dismiss a volunteer? Yes, but it was not because I came in and had a personality conflict. There had to be a real problem. Most people I have are very different to me. I can work with them because it is not about me.

I see no where in scripture where Jesus had a ceo makeup. We take things from the world and mold the church to it. I guess that is easier than changing the world like they did in the book of Acts.

sorry about my choice of words Larry. Really didn't think about it. I am just an old southern boy who is passionate about tthe church refining itself back to the early church. They were not worried about who was in charge. They just loved Jesus. We need more vistiation and less long range planning meetings.

 

A church may desire that the staff leave with the pastor. That is their call. They may desire that the staff stay with the new pastor, and depending ont he constitution that may be their call as well (is there an echo in here???). An incoming pastor would be wise to be veyr careful in asking for a resignation, and take into account the attitude of hte body.

I haven't seen anyone here say this.

"Senior pastor" is the title given to the man who is the primary pastor in the church. Assistant, youth, counseling, etc are titles given to men who serve under him to help him carry out his ministry. The senior pastor would certainly be wise to free them for ministry. But in the end, someone has to be in charge. They have to answer to someone for what time they show up at the office and what they do while they are there, and when they go home. Who do you think that is? The Sr. Pastor.

By this time, you either get it or you don't. I won't continue to rehash my points again and again.

 

Patrick, I agree with Larry. We ALL have a philosophy of ministry. I thank God that He has placed a desire in your heart to be Biblical, regardless.

 

I beleive it is also dangerous to let go those who have a definite call to the ministry, and in some situations may be effectively putting them out of the ministry. When a new pastor comes he needs to get to know his people. Sometimes (if not most often) the staff that was there formerly are the most faithful people of the church.
If, for example, he decides to fire the assistant or youth pastor, who has a calling to preach, it may not be possible for that person to find another place of suitable service.
DHK

 

First, again, I object to the use of "fired." I don't think it would be any harder to get another place of service that otherwise. Second, a "definite call to the ministry" is not a "permanent call to the ministry." We need to be careful to make those distinctions. God does move people on and sometimes it is through situations like this. The new pastor should take time to get to know the people. (I think I have said sevearl times already that I am not talking about a decision made in haste, or out of personal agendas, etc.). It needs to be a very careful decision, after much thought, prayer, conversation, interviews, etc.

Jason says,

I don't have a problem with this setup necessarily. I would be curious to know who does the final hiring. My suspicion is that the Sr. pastor carries a lot of weight in the decision and that is what I have been saying. The lines of authority and "chain of command" needs to be clearly identified. Who is allowed to "call someone on the carpet" for their job performance?

I agree with you. I challenge you to find any "asaistant" pastor, youth pastor, music pastor, visitation pastor, in the Bible. It isn't there. The NT reveals a church with a pastor. Period. The modern inventions of assistants are not "unbiblical" so much as they are "biblical." God ordained the church to have a human leader in the pastor who is to love and care for the flock and have oversight.

I disagree that any unit in the church should function independently of the body. If they did, that would not be a unit withint the church, but another church. In a very large church, that might be the way to go. What good is a church of 3000? Why not have three churches of 1000 geographically divided? (I am not saying we should do that; I am simply throwing out a conversation starter ... some other thread probably).

 

Then who does the 'Sr. Pastor' "answer to?" If you were "Assembly of God" or others like it, you would probably answer, "I'm accountable only to God." But assuming you're Baptist, I don't know what your anwer would be. At any rate, a pastor or elder is not a local pope or a King James I.

 

God and the congregation.

 

Then who does the 'Sr. Pastor' "answer to?"


Definitely not the staff.

A wise pastor will surround himself with a godly group of people who will help him maintain accountability.

 

So, the pastor has no accountabiltiy to staff? i think that is a little naive. We are all acountable to oneanothers as brothers in Christ.

I am a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ. our roles are different but yours is no more important. We are both to equip and spread the word. I don't think God has a hirachy when it comes to minister.

A pastor has a key role in carrying out the ministry of the church. He is to be the shepard. In the day that wasn't a job many people wanted. Definatly not ceo like.

Larry to me you are coming across as trying to run the church like a business. I just do not feel that is the way to go personally. You sound like some corporate headhunter who is trying to build a company and not God's church.

Paul fired one man. Remember he did not want Mark to travel with him. Later on Mark had a pretty key role in the early church. I guess Paul might have wanted that one back.

I sense you are saying the pastor should have absolute athourity when it comes to personel moves. I do not think that is the way that should be set up.

In kindergargden you are to get along with others. I feel that has to happen in minstry as well. I can handle your views on doctrine and the like as a valid reason. The church is probbaly at fault there. They should have done a better job of checking them out.

Personality is a different matter. That goes back to baseless reasons. That is just a man and not a minister that would dismiiss some one over personality.

 

Which of these 2 does the hiring, the compensating, and then the firing, if it comes to that?

 

I have clarified that sevetal times already Patrick. I said nothing to indicate such, and when you accused me of that, I clarified that I view it in no such way. There is no need to keep bringing it up.

Paul didn't fire anyone. They were on a missions trip, and Paul said that since Mark bailed out the first time, he would not do it again. There is nothing to indicate that Paul "wanted that one back." The Scripture only tells us that Mark was later "useful" to Paul for service. It is likely that Mark greatly changed. Paul and Mark's personalities would have greatly clashed at that time. Barnabas was a different personality who could help Mark.

I would not say "absolute." I would probably say "final" or "biggest." A pastor of wisdom will handle it properly. It is fine that you don't agree. I don't really care. But understand the reasons behind it, and the trouble that can be caused by doing it another way.

Personality is not a baseless reason. I was on staff for three years with a man who didn't talk to me. In three years, he and I had fewer conversations than you can count on two hands. I am not a talker myself; it wasn't a good match. A harddriving Type A personality might not do well with someone who is laid back. Now, I don't think a reason should be based solely on personality alone. I never said that, so I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. It is one of many factors used to decide personnel decisions.

 

Which of these 2 does the hiring, the compensating, and then the firing, if it comes to that? </font>[/QUOTE]Please tell me you didn't actually ask this.

 

I don't know why you're asking me to lie, but your request is denied.

 

What in the world would lead you to pose such a question?

(And by, I didn't ask you to lie. It was a statement, not a question .)