What sort of relationship is a pastor or minister supposed to have with their congregation? One might assume that the pastor is supposed to be a spiritual leader, but in many churches a small group of laity are ultimately in control; as a consequence, they go through pastors at a rapid pace. There is little job security for pastors in some denominations.

In Who Shall Lead Them? The Future of Ministry in America, Larry A. Witham writes:

The increasing conflicts in congregations has ... added to the dramatic turnover in ministry. The Southern Baptists have been fairly open about this, reporting in 1988 a peak of roughly 1,400 “forced terminations” — or firings — of pastors in one year. Subsequent surveys, conducted out of pastoral concerns for clergy themselves, found the number settling to under one thousand in 2000. It was found that fired pastors had served, on average, for just three months.

The primary cause has been “control issues regarding who will run the church,” reported the LifeWay ministry of the convention. Other factors included “poor people skills of the pastor” and a “pastoral leadership style perceived as too strong.” While some worry that a third of all Baptist clergy will experience “termination” in their ministry, an outside scholar notes wryly that “Since the relationship between pastor and congregation is said to be God’s will, there is much (deeply ambivalent) laughter about God changing his mind so often.” The LifeWay study also found that 45 percent of the recently fired pastors left Baptist ministry: “We would like to know why so many did not return.”

This might indicate that most congregations are not made up of the “sheep” which many atheists commonly assume them to be. It’s hard to reconcile the image of “sheep” with people who are willing to ditch a pastor after just a couple of months. This depends, of course, on how many are involved in such decision making — it’s always possible that the majority are passive while a few strong personalities are taking control.

This also raises questions about these Christians’ faithfulness to traditional doctrines. Conservative Christians often criticize liberals for “picking and choosing” from the Bible, but how different is it when a congregation is “picking and choosing” which pastor’s message and method they approve of? If indeed the leadership of a pastor is the will of God, who are these people to presume to kick one out in favor of another? Are they simply picking and choosing based on what they want to hear and getting rid of those who are challenging them to think too differently from what they are accustomed to?

A survey by Leadership magazine, which caters to evangelicals, revealed that the trend extended well beyond Southern Baptist churches. A quarter (23 percent) of the clergy respondents had been fired or forced to resign. “Americans want leaders, but as soon as they get them, they have a compulsion to bring them down,” said the magazine’s David Goetz. “And I think that’s true in the church.” Many of these ministers, who most often cited “small factions” as their nemesis, reported that their church had fired the previous minister (62 percent) or the previous two pastors (41 percent).

It sounded like what author G. Lloyd Rediger had labeled “clergy killer” churches — congregations controlled by small, dominant factions or deep, unresolved conflicts. “Clergy firings are very high compared with the national labor force, where 1.2 percent of all employees are involuntarily terminated,” said sociologist Kevin Leicht, author of Professional Work. The ministers’ firing rate “is even higher than coaches in the NFL, a notoriously unstable profession.”

I disagree with Goetz. I don’t think that he’s seeing an extension of a desire to bring down leaders; instead, I think he’s seeing an extension of general, personal empowerment in society. When compared to American society 50 years ago, there is a great deal more personal empowerment in almost every facet of people’s lives. Personal satisfaction has become the standard by which things are judged, and if people are not satisfied they have far more power and opportunity to make changes which they expect will benefit them.

People have more freedom to end marriages and change spouses when they are no longer fulfilled. People have more ability to change the channel and watch a different program when they are no longer satisfied — not to mention record shows or watch alternative media, like DVDs or something on the internet. People can use iPods and other devices to listen to whatever music they want whenever they want rather than be restricted by playlists created by radio stations that have been corrupted by major record labels.

I know, some of this sounds rather trivial, but it’s the extent of these changes that is important. People are more empowered to refuse to accept what authorities hand to them at every level and this can’t help but affect people’s expectations and willingness to act in new situations. If people feel empowered to demand changes for their own personal comfort everywhere else, why would they fail to put this into practice when it comes to their religious leaders?

 

Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.