For the past several days I have been thinking and reading "ethics." Last Friday I attended the Executive Board meeting of my denomination and one of the topics for discussion was "pastoral ethics." There seems to be a growing need for our denominational leaders to compose an ethical statement for pastors to sign before they will receive credentials/employment with the Evangelical Friends Church.
One area of concern to be addressed in the statement is future employment. Several pastors have left their church in the past few years and started another church close by. In every case it seems this action has been injurious to the local church. The Executive Board will be wrestling with the appropriateness of this action and how it will be governed in the future.
What say you? Is it ethical for a pastor to behave in such a manner? Have these former Friends pastors lost their ethical moorings? What guidelines would you suggest? What other current ethical considerations should be addressed regarding pastoral ministry? I have raised several questions for your consideration. Are any of them of interest to you? I welcome your response and I will be happy to forward your comments on to my denominational leaders.
Thanks for stopping by!
-----
Adrian
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is an interesting question and one that I have thought about in the past. In my hometown, we have had pastors leave their position and then choose to worship somewhere else. Leaders get concerned when people leave their church and my question has always been "is it any more right for a pastor to leave than it is for a member to leave?" When a pastor leaves a church especially if that pastor has led his flock well it tends to rip things apart at the seams and then if they choose to take another church close I can see part of the flock following so I cannot see a pastor leaving a church even for church planting just to cause division in another. On the other hand, if there is a desire to build up the body of Christ and another church is necessary to meet a different group of peoples needs then it might be acceptable especially if the first church prayerfully supports this action. How would one set the standards though? These are just a few of my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteCindy,
ReplyDeleteGreat comments! Your question, "who sets the standards?" is excellent. I hope others respond.
One must keep in mind that this whole topic is coming forth form professional church people who have many personal and professional reasons to preserve the religious institution they are employed by. There are three primary arenas of conflict they are bound to consider as they explore why this is a problem at all.
ReplyDelete1. Money. Churches are left with debt when a pastor leaves allows people to follow him.
2. Money. When churches default on debt the denomination is hurt.
3. Money. When churches split and debts are defaulted on, the testimony of Jesus Christ is compromised in the eyes of the world.
Yet as non professional people wrestle with this problem, the primary default is emotional rather than monetary. “but I liked him”.
As long as people look for (or expect) the manifestation of Christ to come from outside of them, they will always follow the 'man'.
As long as the 'man' is dependant upon the people for his livelihood, self-esteem, or validation that Jesus is manifested through him, he will be tempted to allow them to follow him when he leaves.
As long as the church is a religious institution with debt and obligations it must serve itself.
I think the bigger, more relevant question is who will tell the people who leave their commitment to the religious institution to follow the ‘man’ that their ethics are screwed up. After all it’s the ‘following’ people who take their money that really cause the problem for the religious institution.
So, the obvious solution is to get any attendee to commit in writing and with secured assets to the financial obligation of the institution as a prerequisite to entry. Another good an idea would be to charge an entry fee.
Do I hear the sound of tables being overturned?
What about a church that is motivated entirely by the teaching of the Scriptures? q If I agree to support a church, my commi`tment essentially is to the Lord and I will be held accountable accordingly. I have seen first hand the benefits of running a church debt free. Giving is between the giver and the Lord, not the giver and the institution. Just my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteWhen WHFC had this experience a few years ago, I was very upset. There were all kinds of stories circulating and lots of "finger pointing" and there was a lot of anger. WHFC has been responsible for planting many church's in the area and each time we lost some of our congregation but that was expected and necessary for a new planting. It was always voluntary and WHFC was able to survive the new plantings. There was a new church planted right in the middle of Mormon country and it was an involuntary planting, but maybe that was God's plan to plant a new church there. I pray it was God's plan and both church's will survive and bring the Word to many new saints.
ReplyDeleteBill,
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement with your perspective on the church planted in Mormon country. God is big enough to bless the church that was split and the the splinter that rooted in Kirtland. No doubt, He could do that everytime a church splits if He choose too. However, in most instances God would be glorified if the decision to separate and plant was mutually agreed upon by both groups and denominational leaders. Most of the time however, the actions are covert and steeped in anger and revenge by the splinter group.
Anonymous, I hope your comments ("the obvious solution is to get any attendee to commit in writing and with secured assets to the financial obligation of the institution as a prerequisite to entry. Another good an idea would be to charge an entry fee.") are tongue-in-cheek. I think this solution would put even more unneccesary focus on money and take the focus away from souls. Ultimately, I think all the Church can do is be diligent in preaching and teaching the unadulterated Word of God. This includes pastors and other leaders not creating followers of self, but rather of Christ, so that is who people follow. At the end of the day however, no matter how solid a preacher one is, people make their own choices, often to the dismay of the pastor. Some people, I believe, are just prone to follow personalities no matter how much they are encouraged otherwise.
ReplyDeleteIn the post resurrection New Testament church, God allowed a strong persecution against the church to take place. I'm sure they weren't all that thrilled about being used by Nero to light his gardens or whatever other method he used to torture them. God however did disperse that group into all the world and rapidly expand His testimony to nations around. Otherwise, we may have just had a slowly expanding commune to spread the gospel. An adversarial split in a church isn't pleasant, but God surely can use it. We have had some wonderful people come back into the church as a result of the "split" and for that I am thankful. My heart is that though we disagree with people we can and should still love them! As far as ethics go: they seem to only apply to you when you are on the favorable side of you. Does it make a difference what kind of ethical standards we put in place if they are only valid when you are in your favor? A disagreement seems to throw out the rules as we have seen in several situations in the past several years. It all comes down to having a clear concience before God and I can only judge that in my own life. You can't legislate righteousness!
ReplyDelete