Churches switching pastors

But there are other, better ways to handle those potential problems.

In our church, there is such a high level of accountability and transparency that it would be very difficult to put our pastor on such a pedestal.

For instance, if someone has a problem with the pastor, they know that he has an open door policy. Both the pastor and those of us in the leadership have signed a covenant with the church that includes our promise to consider all concerns seriously and prayerfully.

In addition, we make sure that each member of the church is involved to the best of his ability, so there isn't the usual idea of the pastor being removed from the rest of the congregation. When there is that much cooperation, it really does drive home that the pastor is the co-laborer in Christ.

 

The low average pulpit tenure (I think that the SBC average is less than 3 years) may stem from a problem relating to the decline of church discipline over the past 100 years or so.

Without such discipline, entrenched interests have become the centers of power in many churches (especially the mid and small size churches). In most cases it involves one or more families (who nearly always dominate a deacon board...and the board soon becomes like a standing army, always ready to put any newcoming pastor - or any other enthusiastic member - in his place). When this occurs, the pastor will be seen as a newcomer for several years and his authority will be dependent upon how he handles the true power in the church family.

Now, if a pastor can stay in the 7 - 10 year range and he is both seriously evangelistic and discipleship minded, it is possible for a transformation of this old power structure (if, for no other reason, for the numbers of incoming members during that time frame).

The best pastors that I've known have been able to lovingly shepherd these power folks which gives the pastor the time needed to find the proper momentum necessary to get past those early years.

The worst pastors that I've known have handled this (or attempted to handle this) by using personal intimidation coupled with a hand picked staff who provide cover.

 

Accountability is important for all of us in leadership and unfortunately, what we lack most in our church. The signing of the covenant that you've mentioned is a great idea. It would hopefully curb a whole lot of the shooting from the hip.

Don't misunderstand me, I love our pastor dearly. But we've definitely got some deep rooted problems and a very slim chance of resolve. We've been there 26 years and are trying to help but have met with great resistance in the resolve corner.

 

terrific topic.

You've certainly gotten plenty of info from people about pastorates. There is a degree of pulpit hopping that many pastors do, but I've found that most seminary trained senior pastors who are at least 10 years into the ministry tend to stay at their local churches longer than others. Once you get past the 10 year mark in service you find more stability in length of stay overall in pastors than those who are new to ministry period.

I'm a huge advocate of longevity. I'll agree with a previous poster who said you don't become someone's pastor until you're there 5 years.

One of the great contributors to a lack of longevity in a pulpit is the failure of many pastors to learn how to exegete their texts and develop meaningful and fresh sermons to speak to the lives of their parishioners. Poor training in homilectics and languages (or poor application) tends to dry up ministers faster than church conflict. While learning those two aren't a silver bullet for all other things, it sure does help to know that you can always reach back to your training when you're going through some conflict and are running dry on ideas.

 

I'll affirm what preachinjesus said about staying fresh. When I wrote earlier in this thread about having served on a pulpit committee, the need for such a committee arose because the pastor we had called was beginning to repeat himself after six months, and at the ninth month left to take what he called a "sounding board pulpit". Our university-town, relatively new church, was not prestigious enough!

Our people were so angry that when the business meeting was called to accept his resignation, several wanted to "report" him to the SBC. Well, to whom and with what intent? We are not connectional, and his new call had already been accepted. But I was one who, when the vote to accept the resignation was taken, voted, "No". Just a gesture, but a sign of how we all felt used and frustrated.

Come to think of it, that "No" vote was what probably propelled me on to that pulpit committee at the tender age of 29 or so!