What’s Wrong With Search Committees
- 17 views
- Search committees are built to do the wrong thing.
- They allow for undue influence from outside denominational leaders.
- They are susceptible to wrongly-directed committee members.
- Committee members can be wrongly suspicious of the current or past pastor’s counsel.
- They can adopt a beauty pageant mentality.
- They can be risk averse, and so prioritize experience over giftedness and character.
- They can be susceptible to an inordinate hunger for resumes, which is to say, an overly professionalized conception of the pastorate.
- They act in secrecy among themselves and with other churches.
- They can fixate on credentials.
I’ve had positive experiences w search committees:
- I’ve been in several churches who have followed a search process
- And I’ve been the object of several committees (called 3 times to 3 churches)
Moses sent out a “search committee” to spy out Canaan. How did that turn out?
Our church is currently in the search for a senior pastor. The elders and search committee read Chris Braun’s book as one of the first steps in the process. I have to honestly say as one who has been allowed to observe most of the process that our elders and search committee have not exhibited any of the enumerated characteristics. That being said, communication with the church during the process (i.e. letting people know the progress, next steps, etc.) is key especially if the search process is longer than 6 months.
Observations (context of independent / congregational churches):
- In a ideal world, a church would be spawning elders from its own body (2 Timothy 2:2) … we live in a less than ideal world ecclesiastically
- Most Baptist churches have a single pastor-elder-bishop system. And most of these look outside of their own body for a replacement elder (previous point)
- It strikes me that even in Baptist churches with multiple elders, the system is not true Biblical eldership but rather a hierarchy of paid staff (eg the youth pastor, the music pastor, et cetera)
- Dismissing Steve Newman’s “search committee …. Canaan” argument above, there is nothing inherently wrong with church committees (I know they have been abused!). The pulpit committee or search committee is simply an ad hoc (not a standing) committee to accomplish a task - finding the next guy.
- Every baptist church of which I have been a member has had some sort of constitutionally delineated way of forming that committee. Examples:
- The deacons will serve as the pulpit committee
- Or Two deacons, two elected from the assembly at a special business meeting
- Or XX deacons, the SS superintendent, + the treasurer
- Because these congregations are independently governed, they have the right to handle the process in any way they deem appropriate
The author seems to have a low opinion of his congregation. Kind of a self incrimination of his shepherding.
It strikes me that a key issue in the pastoral search process, and for that matter in why we need to have pastoral searches, is that our model of head pastor/subordinate pastors/deacons often works really well for guys who simply do not play well with others. You’ll see it as a promising young deacon leaves, as fairly benign feedback is interpreted as a personal threat, and the like.
I am not quite sure how to fix this; churches with multiple elders do not necessarily get around the big man mentality, either, whether they are officially congregational, presbyterian, or episcopal in polity (or something else). But if you’re looking for a new shepherd, it would be time well spent to do your best to figure out whether he likes sheep, or whether he’s threatened by them.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Sometimes you just have to deal with the reality on the ground. I’ve been a part of one search committee in a small church where the pastor resigned, but we didn’t have other pastors or elders in the church. The search committee ended up being the current deacons plus a couple former deacons (deacons are required to sit out a year in our church between terms before serving another term). We used a number of resources including the book mentioned above.
As we started the search process, we also ended up hiring an interim pastor to fill in while we were looking for a new pastor. He was extremely helpful in advising us on the process, including looking over our questionnaire, serving on the committee, giving his opinion on the sermons we got from the candidates, etc. So in a sense, we did have advice from an elder, but not one who was normally a part of our church. However, if we had not had a committee or some other group made up of laymen, we would have had no one.
Dave Barnhart
Moses didn’t send out a search committee to find a pastor or any other person, but to search out the land …. which was a mistake because they already had God’s will revealed to them that they were to go in and possess the land. Churches don’t have the clear revealed will as to the person who is to be their next pastor.
I thought the list as given betrayed a fair amount of overlap. Instead of 9 reasons, it was more like four or five. And the alleged problems could arise with a committee, it is true, but they are easily overcome.
I suspect this comes from Dever’s obsession with elder rule and his mistrust of congregationalism.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I suspect this comes from Dever’s obsession with elder rule and his mistrust of congregationalism.
Dever is a congregationalist.
I admit I’m doing some things from the “Department of Redundancy Department” here, but examples like Mark Driscoll, James MacDonald, and C.J. Mahaney indicate that elder rule is not a panacea against the problems of dominant men among congregational churches. You simply have to understand that you’ve got to figure out some way of determining whether a particular candidate is a “my way or the highway” person, or whether he really understands how to make disciples.
Maybe that’s how you get around the issue; you ask point blank how the pastor has developed disciples, and make it very clear that this does not mean how many rear ends are in pews, how many young men go to Bible college, and the like. Rather, what daily habits does he have that would develop future deacons and elders so they don’t need a search committee next time.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Larry]I suspect this comes from Dever’s obsession with elder rule and his mistrust of congregationalism.
Dever is a congregationalist.
in name only, in my opinion
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
A few years ago I was present as his church congregation voted to discipline a man and remove him from church membership. In what way do you say he is congregational in name only?
Have you read his book “A Display of God’s Glory” where he devotes a chapter to congregationalism?
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
I have read a few articles and books by Mark Dever over the years. His defense of Congregationalism was a pleasant surprise to me, and a genuine help. Not a few Calvinistic Baptists take an almost Presbyterian approach to church government. Not Dever. He promotes a thoroughly defined and strongly defended case for Congregational church government.
G. N. Barkman
Discussion