Why Pastor Searches Shouldn't Be Left to Committees Alone

When a church starts the process of finding a new pastor, the default move is almost automatic: form a committee. Gather a handful of members, give them a mandate, and trust them to bring back a recommendation. It’s how most Free Church (particularly Baptist) congregations have always done it, and on the surface it seems fair: Broad representation, shared ownership, a democratic process for a decision that affects everyone.

But it’s worth asking why this is the model we default to, and whether it’s actually the right one.

My short is: No. It’s not the right model. 

Consider how deeply most church members have actually thought about pastoral theology and practice. How developed is their historical awareness of pastoral praxis? How familiar are they with their own denomination’s standards and expectations for the role? For most people, if they’re honest, the answer is likely: not much. Not because they lack intelligence or good intentions, but because it’s simply never been their area of study or responsibility. So why do we routinely ask a group of people who don’t specialize in pastoral ministry and theology to evaluate and select the next pastor?

We don’t apply this logic anywhere else in life. We don’t assume that because we’re patients, we’re qualified to help select the next physician at our practice. We don’t put a committee of patients in charge of vetting a new dentist, or a committee of car owners in charge of hiring the next lead mechanic at the shop. In every other professional context, we recognize that evaluating a specialist requires some baseline expertise in that specialty. 

Pastoral searches are treated differently, almost by default, and rarely by design.

Churches are unique organizations, for reasons both good and bad. One potential negative is that, particularly in Free Church traditions, congregations often hand hiring decisions to members with little to no background in pastoral theology, church history and tradition, or historical theology. The intentions are almost always good but the process, structurally, is not built to succeed.

This is exactly where governance becomes clear and vital in the life of a church. A healthy governance structure doesn’t wait until a pastoral transition is underway to figure out how the church will handle it, nor does it hand such crucial decisions to those who are not equipped to make them. 

Healthy governance defines, well ahead of time, who is involved in a search, what expertise gets brought to the table, and how pastoral voices — not just congregational representation — factor into the decision. Governance that’s been thought through and put in place long before a transition is necessary can spare a church a great deal of unnecessary, and often misguided, heartache.

None of this is an argument against congregational involvement. It’s an argument for the expertise the these decisions actually requires. A search process can still be representative and inclusive while ensuring the people closest to evaluating pastoral fit — other pastors, denominational leaders, and those trained in the work — have a guiding seat at the table.

If your church is in the middle of this kind of season, or trying to figure out how to structure a healthier search process before the need arises, that’s exactly the kind of work I help churches with. 

Reach out today!