Thoughts on the Pastoral Call Process

There are different practices for determining how a pastor serves a particular congregation.

The traditional method, used historically by the vast majority of Christians, has been appointment by a bishop. In other words, a man will serve in a ministerial capacity that his bishop (Greek: episkopos, lit. "overseer") has ordered. This is how the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican churches work to this day (as do many Lutheran churches around the world).

It's my understanding that the United Methodist Church (a spin-off of the Anglican church) operates this way, but has the added stipulation that a pastor not serve one specific congregation for more than a few years (seven?), that the pastors are periodically "rotated" at the discretion of the bishops.

A less traditional way of placing pastors puts the congregation as an assembly (instead of a bishop or other hierarch) in charge of the process. Thus, a council or a type of voting body within the congregation will issue a "call" to a pastor, and that pastor may then accept or decline this offer. This method is obviously favored by less hierarchical and more democratic (and congregational) polities. It is an inherently more American methodology.

My own church body, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, though tilting in the traditionalist direction in many ways, calls and places pastors mainly along the latter (congregational) model using a "call process" (sometimes called the "divine call").

With the exception of a man's first call out of seminary (in which case the Council of Presidents, our equivalent of a council or synod of bishops, unilaterally places a man to serve as a pastor of a particular congregation or other ministerial capacity), congregations issue calls, and pastors either accept or decline them.

Of course, the process is surrounded in a pious appeal to the Holy Spirit, with a ritual of the pastor announcing that he is "prayerfully considering" a call - even though his wife may already be packing even while the pastor is announcing to his congregation and colleagues that he "covets their prayers" as he is "prayerfully considering this call."

And while the process is treated with the mystery of a papal election, some very practical matters really must be weighed: salary, housing, schools, proximity to family, type of congregation, etc. And yet, pastors do try very hard not to treat the process as a form of moving up to a better "job." Unlike in times past, these days there are often even interviews and sometimes flights to the potential congregation - thus turning the process more and more like a secular job interview. Sometimes salaries are even tacitly negotiated - which is not actually allowed.

Even apart from such abuses, I do think our current system has some flaws.

There was a time when a pastor's call was sacrosanct and treated like a marriage. For example, in Salem's parish hall (also known as Schmid Hall) - there is a portrait of the Rev. Eugene E. Schmid (1894-1967). He served Salem Lutheran Church right out of seminary from 1919 (at the age of 26) until his death in 1967 (at the age of 73). That's 47 years at this one parish. In the course of his ministry, he saw the roaring twenties, talking movies, the Model-T, the Great Depression, a World War (against the Germans at that), the breaking of the sound barrier, the post-war economic boom, the birth of television, the entrance of women in the work force, the Second Vatican Council, and the social upheaval of the sixties. Pastor Schmid continues to be revered and loved by the people here at Salem. Salem was his first and only call. In some cases, he baptized, confirmed, married, and buried people - and even their children. No matter how chaotic the world was becoming in the 1960s, there was Pastor Schmid preaching the same Gospel.

This was not that unusual in days gone by. In fact, many of the early church fathers interpreted Paul's instruction to Timothy that a pastor be the "husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2) as a reference to the relationship between pastor and congregation being like a marriage.

In many ways, pastoral ministry is like a marriage. Pastor and congregation do need to be compatible, they need to give-and-take in order to get along, they need to love and forgive each other. They need to be mutually faithful. The congregation, as a good wife, must yield to her husband's headship - provided, of course, that the husband is not abusive or ungodly. The Pastor is not to "lord over" his beloved (Matt 20:20-28), and his beloved is not to rebel against her God-given head (Heb 13:17). When a pastor is a faithful husband to his church (as our Lord Jesus is), and when the church is a faithful bride to her pastor, things go well. The wife is to be submissive, and the husband is to lay down his life for the wife (Eph 5:22-33).

But in this fallen world, things don't always go well. Pastors have to be removed. Parishioners have to be excommunicated. Pastors must be admonished, congregations must be called to repentance. Sometimes the relationship will no longer work. Sometimes a pastor's continued tenure would become so disruptive to the work of the Gospel that it is simply time to move on. Sometimes a congregation can't afford to pay a pastor enough to support his family, and it becomes time to find a different pastor that they can pay enough for his needs. Sometimes pastor and congregation separate with rancor, other times the split is amicable.

It can get complicated at times.

In the Missouri Synod, a pastor may opt to go on a "call list." Perhaps he is not being paid enough. Maybe he no longer fits in with his congregation. Maybe he is burned out. Perhaps it is time for him to move in a different direction in the Lord's kingdom. In such a case, he can announce that he is open to a call. He may get one, he may not. The district office has him on a list, and the district president (our rough equivalent of a bishop) may assist in the matchmaking process. Congregations are also free to issue calls apart from any district involvement at all.

Congregations can also appeal to the district president to get a pastor placed on a call list. Hopefully, they do this for legitimate reasons, and not merely out of rebellion or to settle personal scores.

In Pastor Schmid's case, he served Salem as his only ecclesiastical bride until his death. Pastor Schmid is my hero. I love my parish and my parishioners, and unless they reject me, or unless something supernatural calls me away, I see no reason to ever get a wandering eye. I would no more consider trading in my call here at Salem than I would consider trading in my wife. Obviously, if the church became unable to pay me, or if a hurricane should wipe us out (God forbid!), I may have to look at other options. But barring that, given my situation (which is not to speak for anyone else's) I believe it would be wrong for me to put myself on a call list or to consider a call somewhere else.

With all the talk of "healthy" congregations these days, I do think it is better spiritually for pastors and congregations alike to stay put. There is far too much of a "hire and fire" mentality among the congregations and far too much of a mercenary attitude among the pastors. There is not always a determination to work through problems, to lovingly do what needs to be done to make the relationship work. Of course, things don't always work out, but how often do people even try everything possible before throwing up their hands?

In the Missouri Synod, we have the situation where churches (often rural) who are small and don't have much money only have the option of calling a seminarian (due to the ability to pay him less than a more experienced pastor). In some cases, the seminarian is called to a double or even triple parish situation (serving two or three small congregations simultaneously). And in these cases, what often happens is that the young pastor in the ensuing years, marries, has children, and then can no longer afford to stay in that call. He goes on a call list, leaves, and is replaced by another seminarian. That's just a fact of life in many places. It is so uncommon for a pastor to remain in his original call for more than two or three (or maybe five) years that it has become common to refer to receiving one's "first call" out of seminary. It's a strange terminology. Can you imagine getting ready for your wedding, and then excitedly telling everyone about your upcoming marriage to your "first spouse"?

For the most part, the system works. Capitalism of a sort takes care of underpaid pastors as well as poorer congregations. But there is also a predatory nature of our system which I find problematic.

For example, a man may be happily serving a congregation. Maybe they aren't so big or so rich, but they are meeting the needs of their pastor. The pastor has no intention of leaving. But if he is a good pastor, his reputation will spread. Inevitably, even without his being on a call list, he will get a call from another congregation - probably a more "attractive" congregation in terms of money and prestige. The pastor is then given a dilemma: 1) Take a call that pays better money and gives him the opportunity to get out of debt, to provide for a better education for his family, perhaps even advance his education, and look to his own future, or 2) stay at this faithful parish that is paying him the best they can.

One of my colleagues was recently put into such a dilemma. He is the sole pastor of a small, but faithful parish that was founded not that long ago. The pastor and the congregation have a good, scriptural relationship. He was not on any call list. However, out of the blue, a call came from out of state to a very old, established, prestigious, and wealthy congregation - one with great visibility to one of the church's seminaries, with very important and influential members - both lay and clergy.

He would have been an associate pastor at this imposing congregation. His salary would likely have skyrocketed (though I don't know this for a fact). This congregation already has a solid senior pastor, and they were seeking a second pastor, and in the process, were willing to deprive a smaller, not as wealthy, less prestigious parish of her only pastor.

The process strikes me as unchristian, as predatory. It puts pastors into being tempted by money and prestige. It reminds me of Nathan's example to King David about a rich man who had many sheep conniving to deprive another man of his one and only beloved ewe (2 Sam 12:1-6). Of course, luring a pastor away from his congregation is more a case of "shepherd stealing" than "sheep stealing" - especially considering that the word "pastor" is Latin for a "herder of sheep."

In the example I'm thinking about (that is, my friend who was given a call to a prestigious church), I'm pleased to report that he turned down the call, and opted to stay put. This speaks volumes about my colleague's character and devotion to the parish the Lord gave him to serve.

Personally, I think it should be forbidden for a congregation to issue a call to any man who is not on a call list. Maybe we should treat our "first calls" as our "first wives" - and commit to them, pastor and congregation alike, "until death us do part" - unless there are real issues (whether unresolvable conflict or salary) that would make a "divorce" necessary. As it stands now, there is an unspoken understanding that a man's "first call" is temporary, and that if he is a good pastor, another congregation will "put the moves on" him and lure him away from his current call. Perhaps it should be as off limits to woo a pastor who is not on a call list as it is to seek to lure a person who is wearing a wedding ring into marital unfaithfulness.

I'm sure my view is a minority view, and that this situation will not be changed in the Missouri Synod. I'm also sure many will argue that such predatory calls are the work of the Holy Spirit, and thus should be permitted. It can be argued that allowing these kinds of calls ultimately raises the pay and standard of living for pastors, and gives congregations a "supply and demand" incentive not to be stingy. But I still find the process distasteful and neither in the interest of pastors, laymen, nor the work of the Gospel. I have no evidence to support my opinion, but I honestly believe serial pastors are as desirable in the parish as serial marriages are in the family. I also believe the stability of a consistent parish pastor in the lives of the congregants is akin to the continued presence of a family's father in the lives of the household.

Every day, I walk past Pastor Schmid's portrait. Although we Lutherans don't pray to saints, I have to confess, I can't help but give my predecessor a respectful nod and a warm greeting when I stroll by. I have heard "Pastor Schmid stories" for as long as I have been here. Pastor Schmid could be strict and harsh, but also tender and kind. He knew his people, loved them, served them tirelessly and selflessly, and stuck with them even through terrible trials. He stood manfully at his post until the Lord called him to Himself. I never met the man, but there is a bond between us that transcends this earthly life. He is part of the "angels and archangels and all the company of heaven" with whom we worship the Triune God in our sanctuary. It is my privilege to take my place in the same pulpit and at the same altar where Eugene Schmid ministered for nearly half a century.