An anonymous commenter made this response to my recent post about faithful pastors being unscripturally removed. I responded on the fly with my immediate thoughts on the situation. I’m editing it a bit here, because I do think this is an angle worth considering.

And given that my defense of long-term pastorates will be interpreted as an attack on those who take calls, I’m going to address that up front. It isn’t. There are indeed innumerable good reasons for an individual pastor to take a call. They may well have nothing to do with the parish itself, but might involve financial necessity, proximity to aging parents, weather and allergies, being near health facilities, etc. And it may simply be a situation where both pastor and congregation would be better served by a change, and the Holy Spirit provides the opportunity. I’m not knocking anyone. But I do want to make a case for the default to be for a pastor to stay put. I want to argue against an attitude of personal ambition that sees parishes as “stepping-stones.” I want to make a case that something good happens when pastors refuse to leave - even when there is more money and prestige elsewhere, even if he goes through a rough patch, even if the pastor himself becomes trying to the parish - there are blessings to working through such trials and hanging in there, year after year, decade after decade.

As far as implementing a Methodist-style model of ministry with frequent rotations (I believe the standard is every seven years), I disagree. And here’s why.

It takes about five years just to get to know the congregation, to earn their trust, and to be accepted completely by them as their pastor. The Methodist Switcheroo is just a hired-hand mentality. I see the pastoral-congregational relationship as more akin to a familial relationship - in some ways like being a father, in other ways like being a husband.

It is not a good thing for a woman to switch out men in her life every few years out of fear of boredom: not for her nor for her children. Our forebears understood boredom as the deadly sin of acedia. And it is especially a problem for us today as we have a much shortened attention span. We should not indulge it. Nor is such a scheme good for a married man. Not that marriage and pastoral service are exactly the same. They aren’t. But there are correspondences. And just as a wife should not be on the lookout for an “upgrade” every few years, neither should a husband. We grow together. We are designed for long-term relationships - until death parts us, in fact. I have been married 29 years, and our life together (koinonia?) grows and develops in response to our own personal growth and the changing environment that we navigate together (the “changes and chances of life,” as the collect goes, if memory serves). We are constantly there for one another, taking care of each other, and taking advantage of the differences and the complementarity of the sexes by divine design, which makes us collectively stronger than we would be apart - and yet we do continue to grow ever-closer together as one flesh. Couples who have been married a long time know what I’m talking about.

Some have suggested replacing marriage with a series of short-term renewable contracts, such as every three to five years. This is supposed to provide incentive and the opportunity to look for a better situation, and serve as a solution to the problem of high divorce rates. It is a kind-of market based “solution” to the fallenness of the world that plagues and poisons all of our relationships. It overlooks the obvious benefits of human relationships that last for decade after decade, and generation after generation.

As far as the problem of pastors running out of material, the Scriptures provide infinite "sermon and service ideas," as the Word of God is never exhausted. This is only a problem if a preacher is working out of a stable of hackneyed "sermon illustrations" - which do indeed grow stale. Even when they’re “fresh,” they’re contrived and trite. Pastors should preach the Gospel, focus on Christ and His cross, and stick with the well of Scripture - which interprets Scripture, and never runs dry. The Word of God has facet after facet that cannot possibly be examined and exhausted by one pastor in one lifetime. And the situation in the congregation is indeed new every day, while paradoxically, Solomon’s observation remains true at the same time.

Concerning our "life's experiences" we “add to” them not only by taking a call, but also by by staying put (much like we do in a long-term marriage). For though we may serve the same people, those people change. We begin our relationship with our infant members by baptizing them, by catechizing them as children, by serving them in their youth, by marrying them to godly spouses, and by baptizing their children - even as we minister to their aging parents and grandparents. Life provides enough surprises - good and bad - to prevent boredom.

And pastors - like mothers and fathers, like husbands and wives - grow in their life experiences together with their loved ones, not by abandoning them for something "better." Your toddler will, God willing, one day, be a mature adult with children of her own. Your grandson will marry and become a father - and, God-willing, you will make an impression on your great-grandchildren. In this world of radical change, there is a degree of comfort knowing that the pastor who baptized you is still there in the same place, giving pastoral care, and leading the flock to the Good Shepherd. And just today I ran into this beautiful tribute to a long-term pastor in a Touchstone article entitled, “Pastor Prime.” It’s worth putting this blogpost on hold and clicking the link. It’s okay. I’ll wait.

As I pointed out above, there are valid reasons for pastors to take calls, but I disagree that the "variety is the spice of life" philosophy is a good one. I just don’t think it is. I think the costs of this mercenary approach by far outweigh the blessings and benefits of just planting your flag in the ground and standing pat.

I have been at my current call long enough (eighteen years) to be on my fourth Methodist pastor from around the corner. I have yet to see any of them at neighborhood events or embed themselves into the community. Why should they? Why should they buy a house? Why should they invest themselves in forging long-term relationships? Frankly, I have never met a local Methodist pastor. Not even once. I've been an active chaplain of our local fire company for twelve years now, and I am regularly invited to pray at local civic events - even though our area is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. One of my predecessors, The Rev. Eugene Schmid, served 47 years at this parish (1919-1967), there are still those who remember him, and nobody ever says that they wish he had left them decades ago.

There is another benefit to the pastor lashing himself to the mast like Odysseus and refusing to be pushed out in times of trouble. There are indeed antagonists in the church. They exist in our fallen world. If you read the book that I linked to (an invaluable resource written by an LCMS pastor which was required reading when I was at seminary), you might even connect page numbers with certain “difficult individuals” in the congregation. Some folks are just cranky or have their own blind spots or “buttons” (and staying in the same parish for years and years, you will get to know them). But there are also genuine bullies who make parish life miserable - not only for the pastor, but for other parishioners. They may chase people away - including visitors and potential members. If you just take a call, you leave the laity prey to the antagonist. And you will also subject the next pastor to the same treatment. By pastors leaving in the face of antagonism, it sends a message that this is how you get your way in the parish, and to mix metaphors, to make it clear that in this place, the alligators rule the roost. But if you stay, if you do not allow them to bully others, they will either change by the grace of God, or they will be driven out (also by the grace of God to their victims). And you won’t be subjecting the next guy, when you do depart this call, to the tender mercies of the antagonist. Yes, if you have not read Antagonists in the Church, especially you pastors and lay leaders, it could well save your parish.

But once again, I do think the bottom line is that it takes years to be accepted as the pastor and to be seen as part of the community. Those relationships cannot be confected by just adding water, like a cup of instant coffee. There is no substitute for time, blood, sweat, and tears. So I encourage the opposite of the Methodost-style swap-out: longevity and growth together with your parish.

Pastors are fathers, not technicians.