In a previous article, I observed that the length of pastorates has increased markedly in Reformed churches during the last century. In denominations like the Christian Reformed Church and the United Reformed Churches in North America, the average length of pastorates today is nearly double what it was in the mid-twentieth century. Whereas pastorates averaged about five to seven years in the middle of the last century, today they average about ten to fourteen years. I did not attempt in that article to offer any explanation for this change in pastoral tenure.
But I did argue that it reflects a growing consensus (especially among pastors but also among congregants) that longer pastorates are arguably more effective than shorter ones. However, this growing consensus is often left unexamined and simply assumed to be true. Little attention has been given to the pros and cons of shorter or longer pastorates, and some of the factors that play a role in this development have not been clearly identified.
As I stated in my first article, it is not my intention in what follows to provide a one-size-fits-all answer to the question of pastoral tenure. Rather, my aim is to identify and evaluate some of the arguments that are often made in support of longer pastorates. In the course of doing so, I will also seek to identify and evaluate some circumstantial factors that have contributed to the trend toward a “new normal” that favors longer, rather than shorter, pastorates. After identifying and evaluating the arguments and circumstantial factors that favor longer pastorates, I will conclude with a modest proposal for more transparency between pastors and elders on the advisability of a longer or shorter pastorate.
Arguments in Favor of Longer Pastorates
Because the trend toward longer pastorates is so often unexamined and unchallenged, it is not easy to determine what arguments or reasons have persuaded many pastors and congregants to view this trend with favor. However, the three arguments that I have heard most frequently in favor of longer pastorates are the nature of the pastoral ministry requires that a pastor be intimately acquainted with the flock or congregation that he serves; the pastor’s relationship with his congregation is comparable to a “marriage” in which two parties (the pastor and the congregation) pledge their commitment to each other; and the Lord of the church calls pastors to service in a particular congregation, not to service among the churches of a denomination or federation.
A Pastor Must Know His Sheep
The first argument appeals to the biblical teaching that pastors are called “to shepherd the flock of God” (e.g., 1 Pet. 5:1–5, English Standard Version). Pastors are undershepherds whom Christ, the Good Shepherd, calls to gather, oversee, feed, and protect the sheep whom he purchased at the cost of his own blood (John 10:1–18). In order to fulfill this calling, pastors need to pattern their ministry after that of Christ. Just as Christ was not a “hireling” (King James Version), one whose ministry was self-serving and self-aggrandizing, so pastors are not hirelings. They do not perform their duties for “shameful gain,” but for the benefit of those under their care (1 Pet. 5:2). They are to be “examples to the flock” of Christ’s devotion to his sheep, for whom he laid down his life and whom he knows by name.
Advocates of longer pastorates maintain that shorter pastorates do not provide sufficient time for a pastor to fulfill this shepherding role. When a pastor serves for a longer period, he is able to grow in his understanding of the particular needs of those to whom he ministers. The longer a pastor serves a congregation, the more likely it is that he will be able to carry out his pastoral responsibilities in a sensitive way. Rather than preaching to the choir, he will learn to know firsthand the struggles, temptations, and peculiar challenges that face members of the church. Unlike the interloping guest pastor who preaches a generic sermon to a company of nameless faces, he will know what biblical passages to select in order to address the needs of his flock. Furthermore, when the congregation’s members have witnessed their pastor’s attentiveness to their needs, and the sacrifices he is willing to make for their spiritual growth, they will be more likely to receive the word that he preaches. Sheep are far more likely to follow a shepherd whom they know and trust than one who is not committed to them for the long haul.
Undoubtedly, the appeal to the role of a pastor as an undershepherd is the most popular and persuasive argument for longer pastorates. It is undeniable that a pastor’s effectiveness in the ministry requires that he know his flock and tend to their particular needs. However, it is not clear that this argument constitutes a compelling case for longer pastorates as a normative rule. As a generalization, the argument has some punch. But as a new rule or norm, it is not as compelling as might appear at first glance.
There are several reasons this argument is not compelling.
First, it assumes that pastors and churches are all cut from the same cloth. The assumption that most pastors are sufficiently gifted to be able to serve a church long term without their weaknesses becoming a liability is difficult to sustain. All pastors have strengths as well as weaknesses. Likewise, most congregations have peculiar needs that are not likely to be met by a single pastor. Since most Reformed churches do not have a pastoral team, the likelihood is great that a pastor’s weaknesses will become more evident over the course of a lengthy pastorate. Unmet congregational needs will also become more pronounced.
Second, even exceptionally gifted pastors who serve effectively for a long time must reckon with the prospect that their less-gifted successors will have trouble meeting the expectations formed by their gifted predecessor.
Third, since congregations differ in size (some are small, some are much larger), history (some have a relatively peaceful history, others are rife with problems), and maturity (some are well-established, others are young church plants), they will sometimes be better served by a longer pastorate, sometimes by a shorter.
And fourth, some pastors are more suited to a shorter pastorate, others to a longer pastorate. For example, a candidate may well be advised not to stay too long in his first charge. Or a seasoned and gifted pastor may be advised to help a troubled church that needs his help rather than stay in a church where he continues to enjoy an effective ministry.
My purpose in citing these different scenarios is not to argue against longer pastorates but to push back against the claim that longer pastorates should be considered the norm and shorter pastorates the exception.
The “Marriage” Analogy
The second argument appeals to another biblical analogy: the scriptural teaching that the relationship between Christ and his church is like that between a husband and wife (e.g., Eph. 5:22–23). The relationship between a husband and wife in marriage is one of mutual commitment and fidelity. When a bridegroom and bride exchange their vows, they make a commitment to each other that is exclusive, particular, and binding. When a bridegroom takes “this” woman to be his wife and a bride takes “this” man to be her husband, the commitment excludes any unlawful intrusion by a third party into their relationship. As the traditional wedding vows put it, both husband and wife covenant to live together in the bonds of marriage “for better or for worse . . . until death do us part.” The marriage relationship calls for a lifelong commitment that stays the course, however difficult that may prove to be. Husbands and wives are not at liberty to abandon the other because the going gets difficult as they become familiar with their spouse’s blemishes.
Though proponents of longer pastorates occasionally appeal to the marriage analogy to buttress their case, the analogy is overdrawn. The church orders of Reformed churches assume that pastors are subject to calls by other churches in their denomination and that churches are permitted to extend calls when they are vacant. The calling process belongs to the territory, so to speak, of the ministry. Such calls may be disruptive and inconvenient to a pastor and his family, but they may be lawfully extended and they must be respectfully and prayerfully considered. Nothing in the traditional Letter of Call or the solemn vows taken mutually by pastor and congregation at a pastor’s installation speaks of an exclusive, particular, and unbreakable covenant to remain together “until death do us part.” The pastor-congregation relationship may have some features that resemble the mutual commitment of a husband and wife in marriage. But it has never been the conviction of Reformed churches that pastors or congregations are joined in a matrimonial bond.
The Pastor’s Calling Is to a Local Church
The third argument for longer pastorates is not as openly expressed or readily recognizable as the first two. However, even though this argument is not frequently voiced, it does play an important role in the trend toward longer pastorates. In some ways, this argument could be called a stealth version of the marriage analogy.
What I have in mind is the conviction that the pastor’s calling should be viewed exclusively in terms of his service to a local congregation. Consistent with broader trends in contemporary society and culture, pastors and congregants in Reformed churches often view the pastor’s calling through a quasi-congregatonalist view of the church. They do not view the church—and especially the calling of ministers who serve the church—with an eye to the well-being of the broader church. As a practical matter, many pastors do not think of their ministry (which is ordinarily for life) as one that should be of service to the denomination as a whole and its member congregations. They think, speak, and act as though their ministerial calling is largely confined to the local congregation they are presently serving. Service to other churches in their denomination is permissible, but it is in no sense obligatory. Ministerial service among other churches of the denomination does not belong to their pastoral identity.
The implication of this congregationalist mindset for the question of pastoral tenure is patent. When a pastor thinks of his calling primarily in terms of the congregation he is presently serving, it is not likely that he will sense a responsibility to other member congregations of the broader church. Rather than viewing a call to another church in the denomination as an opportunity for greater service, he will view it as an unwelcome interference.
Circumstantial Factors That Contribute to Longer Pastorates
In addition to these arguments, there are also several circumstantial factors that have contributed to the new normal of longer pastorates. Among these factors, I believe three play a significant role: the priority of family responsibilities; the disappearance of the parsonage; and the provision of sabbaticals.
The Priority of Family Responsibilities
Perhaps the most significant factor that contributes to the trend toward longer pastorates is the disruption and difficulty a pastor’s wife and family may experience in moving from one charge to another. As a PK (preacher’s kid), I have keen (and not always pleasant) memories of moves our family made from one church to another. In one case, my father took a call to a church in New Zealand for a period of five years. For my mother and siblings, this meant leaving grandparents and extended family without the prospect of seeing them for a number of years. On another occasion, I remember my father’s decision to take a call to a church in the Midwest. At the time, we lived in the San Francisco Bay area, and there was a clear consensus on the part of my mother and siblings that we did not want to experience yet another move to a strange and (to us) undesirable place. I only mention my experiences at this point to illustrate the inescapable challenge that any pastor faces when deciding to move to another charge. The move will have a profound impact upon his wife and family and involve some form of sacrifice. For this reason, a pastor may legitimately choose in some cases not to leave his present charge because it would genuinely be harmful to his family.
However, there is a difference between a move that would genuinely be injurious to a pastor’s family and the common circumstance that any move from one church to another is inconvenient and difficult. The calling of a pastor to a lifelong ministry will almost always require difficult moves from one charge to another. Anyone who aspires to the office of a pastor must reckon with the likelihood that such difficult moves will be required of him and his family. Indeed, this prospect should ordinarily be broached by a pastor and his wife (and perhaps children) before rather than after entering the ministry. I would even go so far as to say that, if an aspiring pastor and his family are not able to endure the prospect of moving from one pastorate to another, this might be an appropriate occasion for reconsidering his pursuit of the ministry. Just as a pastor should not sacrifice his family for the sake of the ministry, so he should not use the priority of family responsibilities as a sufficient reason for declining calls from churches who need his help. There is a difference between weighty considerations that prevent a pastor from accepting a call and the practical difficulties that will inevitably attend his acceptance of any call.
The Disappearance of the Parsonage
Another contributing factor to the trend toward longer pastorates is the virtual disappearance of the parsonage. Pastoral transitions from one church to another in the past often involved a simple move from one parsonage to another, the calling church underwriting the costs. When a call was accepted, there was no need to worry about selling a home (and getting a good price) or purchasing a new home (perhaps in an area where housing is expensive). The practical difficulties and financial impact of a move from one charge to another were much easier to negotiate than they are at present. Today, the new norm of longer pastorates seems in part to be corollary of the new norm of pastors owning their own homes.
To illustrate the significance of this contributing factor to longer pastorates, I have used the example of a pastor-elect who came to visit a calling church that I was serving as a seminary intern. In the course of the pastor-elect’s conversation with the church council, the subject of the parsonage came up for discussion. The pastor-elect was asked whether he preferred to live in the church’s parsonage or to be given a housing allowance to enable him to purchase a home. To my surprise, he answered the question quickly and directly: “I would rather live in your parsonage, so as not to be unduly influenced by financial considerations in considering any calls that I might receive in the future.” That answer left a lasting impression upon me. It was an honest and frank acknowledgment that the provision of a parsonage has obvious advantages in facilitating the move of a pastor from one charge to another. It also illustrates why the disappearance of the parsonage has undoubtedly played some role in the trend toward longer pastorates.
It is not my intention with these comments to offer a brief for parsonages. The likelihood of going back to the older practice of providing a parsonage is not much better than the Chicago Cubs winning another World Series. There are obvious advantages in allowing a pastor to purchase his own home. When a pastor purchases a home, he will often benefit from the appreciation of housing values and thereby gain equity for the purchase of a home upon retirement or service in another congregation. I would observe, however, that calling churches need to be especially sympathetic to the needs of a pastor who may be called to an area where housing values are much higher than the area where he presently lives. The Letter of Call traditionally used by Reformed churches speaks to this issue, when the congregation acknowledges that a “laborer is worthy of his hire” and then promises to free him “from all worldly cares and avocations.” If calling churches truly intend to keep this promise, they need to be willing, if able, to provide the minister whom they call with the financial resources to purchase a home (assuming that they do not have a parsonage).
The Provision of Sabbaticals
The last factor that contributes to longer pastorates is the provision of regular sabbaticals for pastors who have served for a period of time in the congregation. Historically, sabbaticals were a regular feature of educational institutions. Colleges and universities would grant their full-time instructors a period of rest from their regular teaching and administrative duties. The purpose of such sabbaticals was to allow full-time instructors time to engage in study in their area of expertise, to write articles or books for the benefit of their students, and thus also to enhance the institution’s reputation. Only in recent years has the practice of granting sabbaticals been introduced into the churches. The introduction of sabbaticals for pastors is likely due to two factors: to provide a time of refreshment for pastors who may be worn down or in danger of losing their vitality in the ministry due to the weighty responsibilities and challenges; and the recognition that such sabbaticals increase the likelihood of a pastor’s ability to continue in his present charge without suffering from what today is often termed burnout.
The second of these factors is the one that is most relevant to the topic of pastoral tenure and therefore deserves comment. If the second factor is a significant reason for granting a pastor a sabbatical, it needs to be acknowledged by pastors and elders alike. Though sabbaticals for pastors may be beneficial and serve a number of good ends, I don’t believe they should be granted without clearly identifying their occasion or purpose. If the purpose of the sabbatical is to extend the pastor’s tenure in the congregation, that needs to be openly acknowledged and defined in a way that does not conflict with the provisions of the church order regarding the pastor’s office. When educational institutions grant sabbaticals, they ordinarily grant them to tenured professors who are expected to continue serving their institution until retirement. When churches grant sabbaticals to pastors, however, such an expectation does not typically exist. The pastor does not promise to continue to serve in his present charge until retirement. He does not even promise to continue serving his present church for a specified period of time. Likewise, the consistory or session does not restrict the pastor’s freedom in the future to take a call to another charge. To do so would violate the stipulations for the calling process that are set forth in the church order of the denomination. Since the church orders of Reformed denominations do not permit churches or office bearers to lord it over other churches and office bearers, the terms of a sabbatical may not prevent a pastor from being available for or even accepting a call from another church.
Conclusion: A Modest Proposal
Undoubtedly, there are further arguments and circumstantial factors that contribute to the present trend toward longer pastorates. The question of pastoral tenure is a complicated and delicate one. However, my purpose in writing these articles, as I have noted several times, is to shed some light on the question and to encourage more open communication between pastors and elders on the advisability and desirability of longer and shorter pastorates. My principal aim is to push back against the claim that there is a single answer, a normative rule, that satisfactorily answers the question of pastoral tenure. In some cases, a short term of service may be preferable. In other cases, a longer term of service may be preferable.
My modest proposal is that pastors and elders be encouraged to address this question in a far more open, transparent, and responsible manner than is often the case. When pastors and elders avoid the question, they fail to fulfill their obligation to exercise mutual oversight of their fellow office bearers. Considering this question belongs, accordingly, on the docket of the consistory or session meeting. When the question is not openly addressed and discussed by pastors and elders alike, the likelihood is great that pastors and elders will make unilateral judgments about the question. When pastors and elders make unilateral decisions regarding this question without seeking counsel together, they run the risk of lording it over their fellow office bearers.
Cornelis P. Venema is president of Mid-America Reformed Seminary in Dyer, IN. He is a contributing editor of The Outlook.