Pastoring in congregational churches is often like being on Survivor, you have to outwit, outlast and outplay in order to survive. Recently an opportunity to break that cycle gave pastors hope, only for it to be crushed by the very people who are supposed to protect them.

It’s not often that Baptist denominations are handed a once in a lifetime opportunity to bring about key cultural changes to how we do church polity, and specifically how we do human resource management: the hiring, maintaining and firing of pastors (and other staff).

The current government created legislation ( The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 ) that resulted in a change to the law in relation to fixed term contracts. This meant that the longest a fixed term contract could be was 2 years. This cuts across the typical tradition in QLD Baptist churches of offering a 5 year contract, which is potentially renewed if the pastor concerned achieves the required votes needed to continue at their 5 year ‘pastoral review’.

The Context

In many churches the 5 year ‘pastoral review’ is best described as a 5 yearly get-square opportunity for anyone the pastor has put offside, or an opportunity for the ruling families to get rid of a pastor (for a range of reasons). If everything is going swimmingly well then there is little to fear, if not, you may need a plan B in your back pocket. In some churches the reviews are done well and subsequently have positive outcomes.

It’s not necessarily that people have bad intentions, rather that bad processes that are lacking in natural justice often lead to bad outcomes, as those processes can be used by people to prosecute agendas. [In further posts we will look at this in more detail.]

The methodology of the 5 year review depends on the particular Baptist church you happen to be at, and there is little uniformity due to each Baptist church being autonomous. Herein lies the problem expressed in bullet point:

• Baptist churches are autonomous and are able to run their own affairs without the intervention of the Baptist Union (denomination).
• The overwhelming majority of lay leaders in Baptist churches have no training or expertise in human resource management. They are sincere, but sincerely under trained in this area.
• Often the most egregious examples of pastor abuse are linked to people who have plenty of experience in contemporary human resource management standards but use the lack of acceptable policy in churches to achieve their own nefarious ends.
• The processes used often are not fit for purpose, and in particular, are devoid of natural justice.
• the processes used in church human resource management would not survive scrutiny in a normal workplace. Other than politicians you will hard pressed to find a profession where your clients effectively pass judgment on you in order for you to keep your job.
• The result is often that the process causes trauma for the pastor and family, even if they are successful in winning their vote to be appointed for another 5 year term.
• There is no process in place with the denomination to respond to potential or actual trauma experienced by the pastor and family, and other church members.

Disclaimer: I’ve been through 5 reviews, all of which resulted in my favour. After leaving the pastorate I discovered that I had a kind of post-traumatic response to reviews and lived in fear of them. It took a long time for subconscious to rewire away from fear. Discovering that reviews in the real world are positive and constructive mechanisms to check on my welfare, create opportunities for learning and advancement was mind blowing.

The Opportunity

The Federal government provided a unique opportunity for churches and pastors to move past this anachronistic blunt force instrument towards a more ethical and pastoral model: an open ended contract governed by a rigorous, but fair and just professional review process. Millions of workers around Australia are employed on this basis. It doesn’t guarantee that you can never ‘get rid of’ a staff member, but it does ensure justice, fairness, and opportunities to address short comings and grow strengths.

I’m currently subjected to contemporary review systems in two roles that I have with federal government. They are rigorous, with stringent accountability, but they are also fair and just.

Despite the rigorous and accountable nature of the review systems, I have confidence that I will be treated fairly, and that I have recourse to a body who will protect me in the case of injustice (Fair Work Commission).

For local churches everywhere who cannot afford professional human resource consultancy services, the Fair Work Commission provides a set of rules from which fair and just contracts can be drawn up and agreed between the parties.

The Final Straw

My final straw with the Baptist system happened around an infamous 5 year review. I had two particular members of an eldership that I inherited who were hell bent (pun definitely intended) on seeing the back of me. One of them was put in charge of my review which was to consist of a 3 month period where people could come and give secret testimony to the ‘review committee’. I myself was not reviewed by this committee other than a consultation at the start to explain the process. Any adverse submissions that were deleterious to my reputation or chances of re-appointment were to remain secret.

One night whilst going through the bed time routine of reading a story and praying with my youngest I found her sobbing in bed. When I asked what the problem was she revealed that the Sunday school grapevine of kids who overhear their parents told her that there were people out to get her Dad. Through deep sobs and breaths she told me that she didn’t want to lose her friends, her church and her school, as we would have to move.

Then she offered to stand in the church car park on the morning of the vote with a sign saying “Vote for my Dad’. She had seen how when our church was transformed as a voting booth for our neighbourhood how the respective parties placed signs all over the property and stood on the pavement waving core-flute signs. I realised in that moment how damaging the process was for my children.

The vote was held in my absence of course, because in the Baptist tradition when we talk about you in public its kinda awkard for you to be there, so we ask people to leave so that we can talk about them freely. Even if its to damage their reputation. We also wouldn’t want them to be able to respond to any damaging accusation, we prefer to be able to make them without any comeback.

The vote was carried overwhelmingly, after which the wife of the elder who ran this sham of a review remonstrated with the chair of the elders and warned him of God’s impending judgment for supporting another 5 year term.

The opportunity provided by the change in legislation enabled churches to move beyond what is to my mind the most damaging aspect of Baptist church polity. Nothing results in more trauma in the life of a church, and in particular the pastor and family than the dreaded review process.

The Betrayal

This move the the Federal government through a spanner in the Baptist works. How could the denomination work around this? In the sunshine state QB had been working on a new fan-dangled system for some years already, but the 6 December 2023 sent that process into overdrive. Rather than seeing this as an opportunity to bring about a significant cultural change to our churches and reduce instances of trauma and division, QB decided to double down.

This despite the fact that if anyone has a birds-eye view of the degree of trauma and division that bad human resources management causes in churches – they do. The denominational HQ gets to hear about all the dysfunction going on around churches. They could write books on this stuff, so you’d think they would be relieved that an opportunity finally came along which enabled them to usher Baptist churches into the contemporary era, where workplaces a fairer, more just, and more generous, closer to our kingdom values.

Frankenstein Enters

The end result of QB’s response came in the form of an alternative way of employing pastors, called ‘Spiritual Agreements’ which is the ultimate in spin as there is nothing spiritual about them.

What is a ‘Spiritual Agreement’ as opposed to an employment contract I hear you ask? Here’s a primer provided by QB:

An “employee” is an individual who works casual, part-time or full-time under a “contract of employment”, whether oral or written, express or implied, and has recognized rights and duties which are described in a role description. These employees are normally the subject of annual reviews that are used to assess whether they are performing their role appropriately. The relationship is one of employer / employee which includes the concepts of subordination, control and direction. There is a considerable volume of employment law in Australia (which we shall deal with below) and if you are an employer, then all this law applies to you. An employee is paid a wage or salary, which is in return for time or effort.

A “spiritual appointee” is an individual, called by God, who serves in an agreed spiritual role in or on behalf of a religious institution. The spiritual appointee’s role is broadly defined by the beliefs and practices of the religious institution and normally described in their foundational documents that govern their operation (referred to as their “consensual compact”).

The role is focused around the spiritual nature of the calling, rather than on a list of duties or tasks and because of this fact, there is broad liberty and freedom granted to a Spiritual Appointee to act out their calling as they feel is appropriate. A spiritual appointee is not considered to be an “employee” as they do not have an employment contract and so the body of employment law does not apply to them. They are paid a stipend, which is not related to output or expertise, but is a payment voluntarily made by the church to ensure that the minister has sufficient income to live by so that they are not required to find another source of income and compromise the appointed role.

It’s hard to read without needing to stifle a laugh, as it’s a howler, transmogrifying reality into an unrecognisable slop of bifurcation that doesn’t pass the sniff test, the pub test, the credulity test, or any other test you wish to throw at it.

‘Spiritual Agreements’ are designed to get around government legislation to ensure that Baptist churches can continue to offer employment conditions from a bygone era, where churches can do whatever they want without limitations imposed on them by government. Pastors employed under this arrangement have virtually no rights or protections whatsoever.

What QB has done is create a hybrid Frankenstein monster by cannibalising aspects of the Anglican and Catholic notion of a spiritual office out of its natural life support context of a hierarchical church structure with bishops and an archbishop. The hierarchical structure allows intervention and thereby protection for clergy. The end result is that the SA’s are now placed in a new context where there is no protection from Fair Work, and no protection from the Union because we are not hierarchical and churches are autonomous.

Unmoored from any significant protection, spiritual agreements give immense power to church leaderships and review teams – who are not trained or qualified in any way to handle sensitive and complex human resource management issues. In 2024, in the context of a world where concepts of justice, fairness, due process & generosity have developed in the modern workplace QB is turning back the clock and heading on the opposite direction. 

In Part 2 we will delve into the details of this policy by examining the unbelievable rationale used to promote it.