Of all Alexander Pope’s body of poetry, it is his 1732 poem An Essay on Man that left us with the one phrase many would have heard of, and many would have felt: “Hope springs eternal in every human breast.” I am cursed with this glass-full syndrome.

Against my better judgement I am optimistic of things changing for the better. Pope’s phrase is used when you continue to hope that something will happen, although it seems unlikely. This sums up my abusive relationship with Baptist polity and the people who have the power and influence to change things but don’t.

For reasons best explained by historians with a degree in psychology and access to a stash of under the counter narcotics, Baptists appear to have settled the 5 year public review of pastors as the received way of handling the employment of pastors. This despite a statistical casualty rate that burns through pastors and their families, the like of which would pique the interest of war historians and anthropologists alike.

The review of any employee is in essence a confidential and complex matter. That is why we send people to university to study human resource management and that is why as a country we constantly refine employment law. This is no place for amateurism, especially in contemporary times. We have come to far down the river in this regard for us to tolerate practises from a bygone era.

The employment of pastors is often a lot more complex than the average person, given all the added layers of complexity surrounding calling, how the church is performing, possible conflict, congregational sense of vision and traction, etc.

Review Processes

The typical review process in a Baptist church that uses a congregational governance model is as follows:

• Pastor is coming up to their 5 year appointment window, leadership initiates a review process.
• Typically a ‘Review Committee’ is formed with an amalgam of members of the leadership team (eldership or diaconate) and members of the congregation.
• In some churches, there is a power behind the throne: people who aren’t necessarily on the leadership but who wield much power (pretty much like Baptist Unions at times). A nod may be given in one direction or another. This may determine the ultimate result despite the appearance of an above board process.
• Typically none of the members of the review team have any training that renders them competent of handling a complex ministry employment issues. They are typically sincere and well meaning.
• The review team opens up submissions from congregants who either have praise or an axe to grind. Hopefully it’s praise, and usually it is.
• The pastor may or may not be consulted or reviewed themselves. The fact that the review is about you doesn’t guarantee that you will be reviewed – but only that people’s opinion about you will be reviewed. Ultimately if there is sufficient opinion that you should be retained, you will survive another review process.
• If the review team uses a process supplied by a State Union, that process is fair and if used properly should prevent many of the excesses we see.
• Malevolent members of the church (yes every church has them, let’s be honest) can bypass any fair process by turning the church meeting that votes on any recommendation into a kangaroo court.
• Once a decision has been made by the review team it is passed up to the eldership who call a church meeting to vote on the recommendation. Where a fair and comprehensive process has been used, a disciplined eldership will not allow any discussion, only a vote (because time for discussion in a fair process was given before the meeting).
• If your eldership hasn’t used a rigorous process, the final meeting will mostly likely allow discussion – in your absence of course. During that meeting people can effectively say whatever they want, either positive or negative. You can be slandered, but it doesn’t matter because….. um, because…. that’s just how we have always done it.
• You can win the battle but lose the war. If you don’t achieve more than 80% – 90% of the vote you really have to consider if it is worth sticking around. Less than 70% and you are toast. The bigger the congregation the more people are represented by the percentage. I always worked on the amount of people rather than the percentage. You have to work out just how hard it will be to move forward depending on how many folded arms and furrowed brows will face you as you preach.

That in a nutshell is the typical process in medium and small size Baptist churches that use a congregational governance model. Larger Baptist churches have moved onto a Carver governance model which is effectively a Board led process. These churches offer significantly more protection for pastors and usually have more contemporary and professional standards applied to human resource management.

In Part 1 I recounted an experience of a 5 year review from the point of view of one of my children. I beg your indulgence to repeat the story as it illustrates the abusive nature of the process:

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 still sobbing 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 awkward 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 any criticisms or claims 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 for me.

Bad Outcomes

I can speak from experience that more often than not you win the battle (review) but its no guarantee of winning the war. The pastoral context is one where you don’t just turn up to work. You and your whole family give of yourselves to the church congregation. Through your preaching you self-disclose continually and make yourself vulnerable.

You take the Word of God seriously, and take to heart the standard of behaviour, ethics, values, etc inherent in people who follow Christ. Often you watch people worshipping with their hands in the air with an appearance of spiritual ecstasy, who at the same time are steadily working towards getting rid of you and would like nothing more than to dance on your grave – metaphorically of course…

You see people who to the rest of the church are fine upstanding Christians of the highest order who only drink milk from a Christian cow, who behind closed doors threaten you and white-ant you at every opportunity.

When these people come at you in a review process, even though they are in a minority, you lose bark and it gets harder to front up and and keep on despite the uneven playing field -you abide by the rules but they don’t have to.

Sometimes pastors don’t achieve the required percentage to make continuing in the role viable, or they don’t even win a majority. This can be a shocking and traumatic experience for the pastor and their whole family. The effects have ramifications for many years after for all concerned.

Church memberships can become divided in the aftermath of a beloved pastor and family being turfed out. The whole experience tears at the fabric of the church family and trust is broken. Quite often this can lead to an exodus of justifiably disgruntled church members.

Sadly, within our denomination there is no process to pick up casualties, because ultimately, we are all autonomous and technically the denomination has no responsibility. It may have a Director of Church Health but in an autonomous context all they can do is offer help and suggestions rather than intervene. If anyone in the system is frustrated it will be that person.

In my Army role as a chaplain when we are in battle like scenarios with fighting units on exercise or in real life we are part of a battlefield clearance team. We pick up the wounded, provide solace and care where needed, and ensure that nobody is left behind. There’s no battlefield clearance team in the Baptist church. If you get taken down it’s bad luck buddy, better luck next time, if there is one.

Churches that go through the trauma of an unsuccessful review often simply put the procedure back in the filing cabinet until its time for the next one. Albert Einstein in credited with the well known maxim that “Insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results.” That’s us in a nutshell.

You never make the same mistake twice. The second time you make it, it is no longer a mistake, it’s a choice. We choose to continue with processes that cause our churches and the people in it to become less healthy.

Hope Springs Eternal

The introduction of new legislation by the government ( 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 gave Baptists hope of a better way of doing things. Instead of the usual 5 year terms followed by the lottery of how a review process will work out, churches are able to move to a better system that decreases the potential of church conflict.

There is an anxiety that if you end up with a lemon you can’t get rid of them, however this isn’t the case if you have a contemporary workplace contract subject to a fair and professional review process. I work for a government department that has over 60 000 full time employees on permanent contracts, but they can be managed out the workforce in any given year for reasons ranging from health, suitability, discipline or incompetence.

The review process they are under is rigorous, comprehensive and fair. Where they have weaknesses they are afforded opportunities to grow. Churches can learn from this and implement a system produces healthier outcomes. Here’s an alternative for QLD Baptist churches to the one on offer from QB:

• As a first principle commit to employment processes that protect pastors and their families and the church from damaging outcomes. This is a principled stance that aligns how you employ people to your stated values and your responsibilities as a community of faith gathered around Christ.
• Develop (with outside help) a professional review system that is fair but rigorous, and confidential. The only resource you will find on the QB website is a 2 pager borrowed from a consultancy agency, sobe prepared to get some detailed help from outside.
• Contemporary review process aren’t just done at the end of the year, they involve at least 3 touch points including agreed goals at the start of the year, mid year review review and corrections, and end of year reviews. A professional review system has set dates and is adhered to as a matter of principle.
• Recognise that employment matters are personal, confidential, and handle them accordingly. They do not belong in the public realm except for the communication of outcomes.
• Build into your employment contracts benefits such as professional supervision and counselling debriefs to take account of vicarious trauma and actual trauma.
• Have SOP’s in place for when a pastor leaves in adverse circumstances. Your responsibility to a pastor doesn’t stop when they walk out the door, especially if through working at your church they and their family have been hurt.
• Don’t just meet the minimum standards of employment law, exceed them. Pastoring is a high risk job, be generous and protect your pastors and their families. This is your biblical responsibility. Make them feel safe, even in the midst of occasional conflict. If your standards of employment are lower than a normal workplace, you have failed.
• Include detailed discussions about expectations, conditions and the review process as part of the courting process when you looking at potential candidates. It’s too late to have these conversations after the pomp and ceremony of the induction service.
• Ask yourself if your employment processes reflect the values, ethics, fairness, protections, generosity that is consistent with a community of faith.

Thankfully, many QLD Baptist churches have opted not to run the risk of the legal hair splitting approach of the QB ‘Spiritual Agreements’, and are happy to employ pastors on employment contracts that enjoy the safety net of workplace legislation. A church that offers good contracts has nothing to fear from any outside intervention. Hope still springs eternal.

In Part 4 we will look at how pastors can survive serving in churches under a Spiritual Agreement.