Hiring and Firing God’s Workers

This week’s Alban Weekly post, Courage Under Fire, by Susan Beaumont, addresses the unpleasant task of ending professional relationships in the church.

 

The sample scenario has a senior pastor fretting over a member of a team—a troublesome lay member, of course. A woman, naturally. You know how church women can be.

 

The article has the senior pastor as the sole determiner of this staff person’s value. In the Lutheran church, the congregation council would be making this determination.

 

There are very few churches in America large enough to have a team. Most congregational leadership teams are a pastor and a loyal group of volunteer lay leaders. Too bad. Can’t fire a volunteer!

 

Regardless, let’s look at Beaumont’s list of factors to consider. Note how they also might apply to congregations dealing with pastoral leadership.

 

Her keys points, shortened and rephrased:

  1. It’s someone else’s job to care for the emotional needs of the targeted staff person.
  2. The pastor as team leader cannot be both caretaker and supervisor. The roles must be separate.
  3. The payroll dollars of the church must be for mission and not for preservation of employee needs.
  4. The personal needs of the employee cannot trump the collective needs of the team.
  5. The readiness of the employee for firing is not relevant.
  6. It is not your job as the “firer” to be liked.
  7. No employee can serve well amidst conflict and anxiety. You are doing them a favor to help them move on.

 

These points are well taken.

 

Now let’s look at how they might apply to congregations and pastors.

 

Pastors are called and there is a tangle of red tape and polity traditions governing their comings and goings. In some denominations, the people paying the bills have no say whatsoever. Other denominations give the congregation this responsibility, usually through some sort of governing board. They have the responsibility for ensuring mission but often without any real control over professional leadership.

 

In the performance of their duties as a church board, they will face a sort of pastors’ “union.” It is formidable.

 

Clergy control church media and structure. If a dispute develops, congregations have no platform to present their case. Clergy have an ongoing relationship with church leaders and a platform for their causes. Gossip will reign. For decades. Or longer.

 

Church structure doesn’t like to admit that pastors can:

  • be difficult.
  • be ineffective in mission.
  • create tension and poor working conditions among the team.
  • rally personal sympathy and support within the congregation and cause division.
  • emphasize their comfort, emotional needs, and professional needs over the combined mission of the church

 

Lay leaders have the responsibility for the parish. They will live with the consequences as pastors come and go.

 

They should be able to follow the advice of Susan Beaumont. They should put mission and the health and spirit of the team (congregation) first. As Christians they should feel concern for church leaders but not make their emotional or professional needs the focus of their ministry. They should be able to make unpopular decisions.

 

But often congregations are required to protect their relationship with pastor above all else. Likability is more important than performance.

 

As long as there are no moral issues, the pastor’s role is protected. Congregations can wither for years under the same pastoral leadership. Everybody likes everybody. No change will be sought (and no change will result).

 

Decline is accepted—even expected. All congregational reserves will be spent on a relationship that is pleasant but unproductive before change is considered. Then, it is too late.

 

Pastors will not want to serve a congregation without a well-filled coffer.

 

So what’s happening to the laity while everyone is happy?

  • Talented members leave with a sense of futility.
  • As things decline, murmurs of discontent start. Finger-pointing isn’t far behind
  • People stop coming because of the atmosphere. They may not be able to put a finger on it, but things just don’t seem right. This will be interpreted by clergy as a “change in demographics.”
  • Lay people who feel a responsibility for the future of the church are labeled as troublemakers. They may even be discouraged from leadership—seen as a threat to clergy.
  • The pastor will seek solace among the clergy. The denominational rumor mill is primed. Laity will be unaware that they are grist.

 

Should ministry fail, it’s the fault of the laity.

 

Pastors never fail.