FAILINGS OF THE MINISTRY

and the grounds for resignation or dismissal from pastoral ministry

From an address given at the Metropolitan Tabernacle School of Theology 1988

by Malcolm W atts
Evangelical Church Salisbury

The subject before us is the failings of the ministry, including the grounds, other than those of sin or heresy, which
warrant termination of service. Before considering these things, the scriptural ideal of a long-term ministry deserves
emphasis.

A year or so after Calvin’s expulsion from Geneva, he wrote to Sadoleto, Archbishop of Carpentras, saying: ‘Although
I am for present relieved of the charge of the Church of Geneva, this circumstance ought not to prevent me from
embracing it with paternal affection. For God, when he charged me with it, bound me to be faithful to it for ever.’ W hen
he returned in 1541, the ‘Registres’ record: ‘he offered himself to be always the servant of Geneva.’

Notable long ministries

In the reformed tradition, men have exercised most useful ministries in one place over a long period of time. M any
examples could be cited, but here are some of the most noteworthy: John Bunyan was Pastor at Bedford for 16 years;
Richard Baxter was at Kidderminster, 29; Benjamin Keach at Southwark, 36; Thomas Boston at Ettrick, 25; John Brown
at Haddington, 37, and his two sons, John and Ebenezer, were in pastorates for 56 and 58 years respectively.

John Berridge was Pastor at Everton for 32 years; George Lawson at Selkirk, 49; John G ill (Keach’s successor) at
Southwark (later called the Metropolitan Tabernacle), 51; John Rippon in the same church for 63 years; Andrew Fuller
at Kettering, 33; W illiam Jay at Bath, 62; John Angcll James at Birmingham, 54; Henry Cooke at Belfast, 39; James
Begg at Edinburgh, 40; Andrew Bonar at Glasgow, 49; John Kennedy at Dingwall, 41; and so one could continue.

Things have certainly changed. W e live in the age of the short pastorate, when men are expected to be in a church for
about three years, or five at most. At college, I recall that students were told not to stay longer than two to three years,
particularly in the first pastorate, because by that time they would have made enough mistakes to make a move advisable
— even perhaps essential!

Charles Williams of Accrington saw this coming in 1903. ‘There are signs,’ he wrote, ‘that pastorates in the future are
likely to be shorter than in the past. The art of choosing a ministry so that the ending of it is like a glorious sunset is
worth cultivating.’ This is, of course, utter nonsense. W e are not in the business of cultivating an art which enables us
to make an exit with applause. That is an ingredient, it seems to me, of an unfaithful ministry.

Scripture points in quite another direction, towards the ideal of a long-term pastorate. God the Holy Spirit makes a man
pastor of a church, and the divine charge is not to leave at a convenient time, but to take heed . . . to all the flock (Acts
20.28). ‘A pastor, settled in the service of a people, is to be so sensible of his designation by the Spirit and the providence
of the Lord Jesus Christ for that service . . . that his removal must not be rashly attempted’ (New England Ministers).

W hen a man becomes a pastor of a church, a bond is established and a union formed. Paul reminds the Colossians of
this. Epaphras our dear fellow-servant, he says, is FOR YOU a faithful minister of Christ (Colossians 1.7). Later, in the
same epistle, he speaks of him as ‘one of you, a servant of Christ’.
Our forefathers tried both to honour and preserve that relationship. J. Jackson Goadby, the Baptist historian wrote: ‘W hen
the union between elder and people had once been formed, it was deemed sacred. Seldom do we read of the pastors of
the early Baptist churches removing from one place to another. Some regard the tie as indissoluble as marriage, and only
to be severed by death, or by the apostasy of the elder.’

Biblical support
Some of the biblical terms for spiritual responsibility indicate long and stable pastorates. A pastor is made a ‘steward’
in the house of God and fulfils the role of spiritual ‘father’ (Luke 12.42; 1 Tim 3.5). ‘Father’ suggests permanency. In
the words of Stephen Ford, churches should never be ‘inns or ale-houses, where persons go in and out at their own
pleasure’.

Our Lord makes fidelity to the flock the mark of a good shepherd. The good shepherd, He said, giveth his life for the
sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth
the sheep, and fleeth... (John 10.11-12; cf Zech 11.17). In his book, The Pastor, Dr Hezekiah Hervey remarks: ‘The trials
which may meet a church, so far from justifying the pastor in leaving it, may be only an additional evidence of his duty
to remain. He may not abandon, in a time of perplexity and danger, the flock the Lord committed to him.’

The servant of the Lord may be tempted to move to a more peaceful or comfortable situation. Mark Jeremiah’s words:
Oh that I had in the wilderness a lodging place of wayfaring men; that I might leave my people, and go from them! for
they be all adulterers, an assembly of treacherous men (Jeremiah 9.2). If we have ever felt like this ourselves, we may
feel considerable sympathy for the prophet, but Latimer was quite right to call this ‘a naughty, a very naughty resolution’.
As it turned out, however, Jeremiah resisted the longing. He stayed with his people, and so should we. Our hand has been
put to the plough, and our duty is to remain in the field (Luke 9.62).

A pastor is Christ’s gift to the church (Ephesians 4.11-12), intended as a means of promoting its perfecting or ‘complete
outfitting’. How can this be accomplished in two or three years? W e fear that those pastors who are constantly on the
move have little understanding of their calling. ‘The Christian ministry,’ writes Dr John Eadie, ‘is designed to mature
the saints, to bring them nearer the divine law in obedience, and the Lord’s example in conformity.’

Let us always remember that a pastor has to render on judgement day an account of how the church has profited under
his care and attention. As Hebrews 13.17 says — They watch for your souls [the souls united in church fellowship], as
they that must give account [‘of their office, of their work, and of the flock committed to their charge’ — John Owen].

This thought is said to have struck Chrysostom with tremendous awe. One young man, in conversation with an older
and more experienced minister, is said to have complained of the smallness of his flock. He was solemnly told: ‘You
will find them more than enough when you have to answer for them on the day of judgement.’

I am disturbed to hear of the ever-increasing number of short-term pastorates. It is as if some men have two or three
series of sermons, and when they have preached through these, they move to another church — and start all over again.
Others are happy to remain in a church at peace, but as soon as problems arise they are ‘led’ elsewhere, leaving the crisis
for their successor. Obviously there is no biblical warrant for this. The length of a pastorate has been reduced to a matter
of mere expediency.

Advantages

W hen pastors leave God’s way and choose their own, they miss out on great spiritual blessing, because there is profit
in a long-term ministry. First of all, a precious relationship develops between pastor and people; secondly, faithfulness
will earn a man honour and respect; thirdly, church problems will be properly dealt with; fourthly, knowledge of the
members will facilitate wise decision-making; and fifthly, thorough reform can be introduced, and a scriptural faith and
order established.

The Resignation of a Pastor

Before dealing with seven grounds for resignation of pastoral office in a church, some preliminary observations are
called for. These are scriptural responsibilities which must always be most carefully weighed. First, it is far from easy
to be satisfied and assured of a call to another sphere of work. W hen Barnabas and Saul were called to a new mission,
guidance was given only when they ministered to the Lord, and fasted (Acts 13.2). Calvin comments: ‘In appointing a
public fast, which used to be done in hard matters and of great importance, they provoke both themselves and others unto
an earnest ferventness in prayer, for this is oftentimes added in Scripture as a help to prayer.’

Change not to be sought

Secondly, ministers should not seek removal, and other churches should not entice them. There is a relevant verse in the
book of Proverbs: As a bird that wandereth from her nest, so is a man that wandereth from his place (Proverbs 27.8).
A bird wandering from its nest can easily become the prey of hawk or fowler. Likewise, a minister with a roving
tendency is fair game for the enemy of souls.
Churches enticing men away from their situations could well be described as menstealers (1 Timothy 1.10.) A good
response to such churches would be: I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down: why should the work cease,
whilst I leave it, and come down to you? (Nehemiah 6,3.)

Thirdly, if a move is being contemplated, special thought should be given to the future of the church about to be left.
W ill it be able to fill the pastoral office? W ill it suffer through lack of ministry? These questions, I fear, are rarely asked.
All too often pastors are like the ostrich which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust, and forgetteth
that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them. She is hardened against her young ones, as though
they were not her’s (Job 39.14-16).

Many pastors move without a call from God. ‘I think,’ says Stephen Ford, ‘that they may have the loud, strong calls of
men to minister to them, when God is not in it.’ Yes, this is possible. God declares of some: I have not sent these
prophets, yet they ran (Jeremiah 23.21). Let Jonah be a beacon of warning to self-willed men who forsake their God-
given responsibility!

A pastor may be translated to another church only when he has the permission and approval of his present church. God
called Barnabas and Saul from Antioch, but He also made the church aware that this was His will. As a result, they sent
them away; they ‘released’ them, or ‘let them go’ — for this is the meaning of the word used (Acts 13.3). A proper and
regular call will include the church’s agreement, expressed in such words as, The will of the Lord be done (Acts 21.14).

In the event of uncertainty, it is well to seek ‘the advice of other churches and ministers’ (Dr John Gill). In the multitude
of counselors there is safety... Without counsel purposes are disappointed ... Every purpose is established by counsel
(Proverbs 11.14; 15.22; 20.18). There is New Testament precedent for consultation with ministers and elders of like-
minded churches (Acts 15).

God’s smile is upon obedience, His frown upon disobedience. As the psalmist observes, His loving-kindness and
faithfulness are shown to those who choose, not their will, but His: All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto
such as keep his covenant and his testimonies (Psalm 25.10). The other side of this truth is stated in Jeremiah 23.32: I
sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the Lord.

1 LACK OF CALL

W hat then are the grounds for resignation? The first is a satisfaction in the minister’s own heart that he lacks the evidence
of a divine call. He may have mistakenly believed that he was called to the pastoral office: in which case, to continue
to profess to be called, when convinced that this is not the case, is to live a lie.

An inner call from the Lord is essential (Rom 10.15; cf Matt 4.19; John 20.21). This includes: the scriptural commission
impressed upon the heart (Acts 13.47); a strong and irrepressible desire (1 Tim 3.1 — literally, ‘a stretching towards’ or
‘longing after’) to minister God’s W ord; gifts and abilities essential to pastoral work (1 Tim 1.12); an overwhelming and
predominating conviction in the soul (2 Cor 9.16); and, in addition to all this, a genuine affection for the Lord’s people
(Phil 1.8 — I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ). Now, if a man comes to realise that these things arc simply
not true of him, the fact of the matter may be that he has never been called of God.

The same applies to the outer call (from the church), by which we understand election by the people and ordination to
office (Acts 14.23; 1 Tim 4.14). Ordination, of course, is a fact of the past; but election, while past in one sense, is
something which may be subject to change. A majority of wholesome church members may lose confidence in a man
and may no longer desire him to be their pastor. W hat should he do? Disregard their feelings and impose himself upon
them? To do this is not only to violate biblical principle but it is to deny the church her inherent right.

W e have considered the main elements of a divine call. If they are not present, a man cannot and dare not continue in
the ministry: the only course open to him is to resign.
2 INABILITY

The second ground for resignation is a man’s inability to perform the duties of the pastoral office. These duties are called
a good work (1 Tim 3.1), and Gospel ministers are required to labour in the word and doctrine (1 Tim 5.17); ‘labour’
is the general word used for service. John Lorimer remarks: ‘It is every minister’s duty to labour with all diligence, and
even to fatigue, in the service of his Master.’

Several things could prevent a minister from fulfilling his responsibilities. Bodily weakness (by reason of sickness or
old age) could hinder him. W hen David was being restored to his throne he invited Barzillai, a Gileadite chief who had
ministered to him in adversity, to accompany him to Jerusalem and there to continue in his service. But Barzillai was
eighty years old, and feeling too enfeebled for active employment he respectfully declined the proposal: Wherefore then
should thy servant be yet a burden unto m y lord the king? (2 Samuel 19.35). Very wisely, he decided to leave active
service to those more suited to the task.

Decay in mental or intellectual ability may also prevent a minister discharging his responsibilities. The apostle stresses
the minister’s need for a sound mind. He writes: God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and
of a sound mind (2 Timothy 1.7). The word denotes one of safe and sane mind. ‘The state referred to here is that in which
the mind is well-balanced and under right influences . . . It was this state of mind that Timothy was exhorted to cultivate;
this which Paul regarded as so necessary to the performance of the duties of his office. It is as needful now for the
minister of religion as it was then’ (Dr Albert Barnes).

Spiritual backsliding will, of course, make worthy ministry impossible. In Malachi 2.6 an ideal minister is described in
these words: He walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. But Scripture reveals, and
experience confirms, that it can so easily be otherwise. Peter, through backsliding, forfeited his office, and only after
repentance and rededication was he restored to his former position.

How striking are those words addressed to the elders of Ephesus: Take heed therefore unto YOURSELVES, and to all
the flock . . . (Acts 20.28). The same apostle warns Timothy of spiritual declension: Neglect not [‘do not grow careless
about’ — Hendriksen] the gift that is in thee . . . Stir up the gift of God [literally: ‘stir up the smouldering embers into
a living flame’ — W alter Lock] (1 Tim 4.14; 2 Tim 1.6).

W hat Paul so faithfully urged upon others he was careful to maintain himself. I keep under my body, he said, and bring
it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway (1 Corinthians
9.27). He struggled against sin, strenuously seeking to prevent the one thing he feared more than anything else —
rejection.

3 NO BLESSING

The third ground for resignation of a minister is the conscious realisation, over a long period of time, that G od has
withdrawn the gracious influences of the Holy Spirit, with the result that all effort proves ineffectual. One of the most
tragic statements in the W ord of God is to be found in Judges 16.20, where we read that Samson — awoke out of his
sleep, and said, I will go out as at other times before, and shake myself. And he wist not [knew not] that the Lord was
departed from him.

The poor, foolish man had abandoned God, and God in turn had abandoned him, and so he had lost all his strength and
power. The Philistines sprang upon him and he could not resist them, let alone overcome them. He had fallen from God
and from service.

Another fearful example of the withdrawal of God’s favour and blessing is to be found in the life of King Saul: the Spirit
of the Lord departed from Saul! (1 Samuel 16.14). Dr W illiam Taylor explains: ‘God withdrew from him all those special
aids which, in connection with his anointing to the royal office, had been conferred upon him.’ The loss of the Spirit
preceded the loss of the throne.

This may be related to backsliding, as in the examples given, in which case a minister may (in scriptural language) vex,
grieve or quench the Spirit. However, it may simply be the Holy Spirit’s way of leading His servant from one place to
another: And Moses said unto the Lord . . . Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, SHEW ME
NOW THY WAY . . . And he said, MY PRESENCE SHALL GO WITH THEE, and I will give thee rest (Exod 33.12-14;
cf Acts 16.6-7).

M’Cheyne’s attitude

The point is well make by Robert M urray M’Cheyne in a letter written from Dundee in 1841: ‘I have been asked to leave
this place again and again, but I have never seen my way clear to do so. I feel quite at the disposal of my divine Master.
I gave myself away to H im when I began my ministry, and He has guided me as the pillar of cloud from the first day
till now. I think I would leave this place tomorrow if He were to bid me; but as to seeking removal, I dare not and could
not. If my ministry were unsuccessful, if God frowned upon the place and made my message void, then I would willingly
go, for I would rather beg my bread than preach without success; but I have never wanted [lacked] success.’
It must, of course, be said that most preachers have bad times and even prolonged seasons of ineffectiveness. In God’s
field there is often need for spiritual ploughing and sowing (John 4.37-38) and, as the saying goes, ‘You can’t make hay
all the year round.’ Furthermore, the effect of a man’s ministry is not always immediately apparent: God’s work of grace,
by the Gospel, is secret and hidden in the soul (Matthew 13.33) and it is a mistake to judge by outward appearance. W e
must therefore make allowance for such seasons. If, however, there is no anointing upon the preacher and no blessing
among the people, and this has become a settled state of affairs, then a man should ask whether he is where God would
have him be.

4 THE W IDER GOOD

A fourth ground for resignation is when it serves the common good, or the general well-being of Christ’s kingdom. It
is our duty to be concerned about the prosperity of the universal Church. The Lord’s ancient people were aware of this
and they set us a wonderful example in this regard. Burdened with the spiritual state of the Gentiles, they asked: We have
a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for? (Song
of Solomon 8.8.)

There is a sense in which ministers belong to the whole church of God — Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas . . . all
are yours (1 Corinthians 3.22.) They should therefore be devoted to its welfare. Hence, Barnabas left Jerusalem to help
a company of Christians at Antioch (Acts 11.22-26). Later he and Paul left Antioch to establish and organise churches
in Galatia (Acts 13.2-3).

‘It cannot be denied,’ writes John Owen, ‘but that there may be just causes of the removal of a pastor from one
congregation unto another; for whereas the end of all particular churches is to promote the edification of the catholic
[universal] church in general, where, in any especial instance, such a removal is useful unto that end, it is equal it should
be allowed.’ Owen wisely counsels that such removals be made, 1 - W ith the free consent of the churches concerned;
and, 2 - W ith the advice of other churches, or their elders, with whom they walk in communion,

5 LOSS OF RESPECT

The fifth ground for resignation is an irretrievable loss of respect, which makes it impossible for there to be any blessing.
The New Testament insists on special honour being given to the elders who regularly preach. (See 1 Tim 5.17, and also
1 Thess 5.12-13.)

John Gill (right) pastored at Southw ark (now the M etropolitan Tabernacle] for 51 years, and John Rippon his successor (left) for 63 years. Before
them , Benjam in Keach (below) was pastor for 35 years .

Little good can be effected without the supporting respect of the people. The people may well become irregular in
attendance, and they may not readily submit to pastoral authority in areas of doctrine and practice.

How different was the attitude of the Galatians, who had the highest regard for Paul, and who received him and his
leadership as they would have received an angel (or messenger) of God, or even Jesus Christ Himself (Gal 4.14) (See
also Matt 10.40).

Certainly, the church should cherish an affectionate esteem for the pastor, but what is all too often overlooked is that to
extort that esteem merely by virtue of possessing office is as foolish as it is contemptible. Respect must be earned by
fervent and faithful service. Pastors who rule well and labour in the word and in doctrine are those who deserve the
respect of the church.

The apostle charges Timothy: Study [or, be earnest] to shew thyself approved unto God, a WORKMAN that needeth not
to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2.15). Watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the
work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry [ie: fully perform it, make it a complete and effective service] (2
Timothy 4.5).

Let no lazy or idle pastor assert a claim for the respect of the people. Let him rather consecrate himself to the work of
the ministry. Let him devote all his powers to the work of furthering the Gospel and advancing God’s kingdom in both
church and world. Then the Lord’s people will look up to him. In these circumstances they will follow him.

Equal attention must, of course, be given to godliness and to the living of the Christian life. However industrious a pastor
may be, if he fails to live in a godly manner, he will be blamed, not honoured. Be thou an example of the believers, in
word, in conversation, in charily, in spirit, in faith, in purity (1 Timothy 4.12). ‘I am more than ever convinced,’ writes
Dr Andrew Bonar, ‘that unholiness lies at the root of our little success.’

Of course, the pastor may not be at fault. It may be the people who are failing to fulfil their obligation to respect the one
set apart among them for the ministry of the W ord. If this is the case, it may be an indication from providence that he
should move elsewhere. After the way in which he was treated at Nazareth, our Lord said: A prophet is not without
honour, but in his own country (Mark 6.4). And immediately He left for a new scene of work.

6 LACK OF SUPPORT

A sixth ground for resignation is the lack of proper maintenance, making it difficult, if not impossible, for a minister to
provide for the needs of his family. Paul writes: If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house,
he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5.8). Earlier, he had in view the obligations of children
to parents, and families to widows, but here he states a general principle that we have an obligation to support all those
who are dependent on us. Failure to do this is a practical renunciation of the Christian religion, which so clearly enforces
upon believers the obligations of family life.

In order that a minister might give his whole time to the work (Acts 6.4)., he must be freed from all secular business. This
means that, like the priest in Old Testament times, he will be entirely maintained by the church (Num 18.20; Dent 18.1-2;
1 Cor 9.6-14). Some men seem hypersensitive about this and shrink from preaching upon it, but this can be a mistake.
By divine appointment, the minister has a right to proper financial support.

W hen our Lord sent out the twelve to preach His Gospel, He told them not to take any money with them, but to expect
adequate financial support from those they preached to. The workman, He said, is worthy of his meat (Man 10.10).
Almost identical words were used in the commission to the seventy — The labourer is worthy of his hire (Luke 10.7).
W e know the apostles availed themselves of this provision, except in those places where they might be accused of having
mercenary motives.

But does the rule apply to ordinary pastors and teachers? Most certainly. Paul teaches that elders who labour in the word
and doctrine should receive adequate support from their churches; and to enforce his point he quotes the utterance of
Christ: The labourer is worthy of his reward (1 Tim 5.17-18).

Other references in the epistles confirm this to be the apostolic teaching, eg: Let him that is taught in the word
communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things (Galatians 6.6). W hat could be clearer than 1 Corinthians 9.14
? — Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Evil of neglect

Many churches have to struggle in order to support their pastor and, although the resultant stipend might be low
according to some standards, they at least try to fulfil their God-given responsibility. But if a church through neglect fails
to honour its obligations, it becomes guilty of setting aside an institution of Christ.
This is a serious fault, and a pastor may well feel that he cannot remain where this is the case. Besides, how can a man
give his undivided attention to the work of the ministry when he is burdened with care, and perhaps even with debt?
Indeed, if kept poor, how can he properly perform his duty, seeing that duty includes, for example, the giving of
hospitality? (1 Timothy 3.2).

A minister may choose to continue in a church despite these things; but I wonder what blessing can be expected in such
a situation. Dr Gill says: ‘There are some cases in which it may be lawful for him (the pastor) to remove; as when . . .
a competent provision is not made for him and his family, but they are not only exposed to want, but the Gospel also
to the reproach and contempt of the world.’

7 OPPOSITION TO W ORD

The seventh and last ground for resignation is that of adamant and persistent opposition which renders the church’s state
incurable. Let me say at once that this opposition must be carefully assessed, and must extend over a considerable period
of time, before any decision is come to. Hot-headedness is no virtue. However trying a situation may be, it ill becomes
a pastor to act impetuously or rashly. A bishop must be . . . patient (1 Timothy 3.2-3).

Paul warns of the opposition we are likely to meet, but he does not suggest for one moment that we should respond to
it with threat of resignation. Rather, he says, we should be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness
instructing those that oppose themselves (2 Timothy 2.24-25). Some appear never to have read those words. A
disagreement arises with elders or deacons, or a difficult and troublesome church meeting occurs, and they are ready to
throw in their hand. They call it being ‘firm and uncompromising’. I call it high-handed and rather stupid. Action of this
kind cannot be justified.

However, a time may come when the church proves so obdurate in its resistance to valid biblical leadership that a move
is necessary. Our Lord taught his disciples to leave an utterly hopeless situation (Matthew 10.23); and Paul’s words in
1 Timothy 6.3-5 would seem to apply: If any man . . . consent not to wholesome words . . . he is proud, knowing nothing,
but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse
disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth . . . from such withdraw thyself. A pastor may need to take
that action to avoid compromising himself (Eph 5.11; I Tim 5.22); and, in the mercy of God, it may be the means of
reproving and restoring the church (see Hos 3.4-5; Amos 8.11-12).

Luther once wrote to a man called Conrad Cordatus advising him to leave his charge in Zwickau: I pray you for Christ’s
sake to leave that Babylon in which you are, and give place to wrath. I see that the people are delivered up to Satan, and
that God’s wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. Indeed, I fear that Satan will stir up some sort of rumpus that will
afterward be blamed on you. Let them do as they will. As you see, they are unwilling to endure your counsel of peace,
your pains, your ministry.
‘You have other dangers to worry about, for if you continue to minister to these unwilling, impenitent, and desperate
people, you may irritate them even more and give them additional cause to hate you. Flee from that town and shake off
the dust from your feet for a testimony against it before the matters get worse and it becomes impossible to apply a
remedy.’

These are the grounds which might justify resignation. You will observe that they involve most serious matters and also
that they need to be surrounded with important scriptural cautions. One thing is clear: resignation cannot be justified on
such grounds as, the need for a change, general tiredness, problems, discontent, or dislike of the environment!

Dismissal of a Pastor

In the best Calvinistic and reformed tradition, the minister is subject to church authorities and to the common discipline.
John Calvin devoted a section of his Institutes (Bk 4, ch 12.22) to ‘The discipline of the clergy’, and said: ‘It is truly
fitting that the common people be ruled, so to speak, by a gentler and laxer discipline; that the clergy practice harsher
censures among themselves and be far less indulgent towards themselves than towards others.’

The Puritans were of the same mind, as may be seen from a Book of Discipline, which appeared in 1583, the joint work
of Thomas Cartwright and W alter Travers. It stated: ‘They that are to be excommunicated being in publique charge in
the church are to be deposed also from their charges. They also are to be discharged that are unfit for the ministry.’

Even the early Separatists were in agreement on this point. In Henry Barrow’s most important book, A Brief Discoverie
of the False Church, the point is made that the minister — ‘like any other member, is subject to the censure of the
church’. And John Robinson, pastor of the pilgrim fathers, had this to say: ‘The pilot is to guide the ship and all that are
in it, yea, though the king himself be there, but if he either ignorantly or desperately will run upon the sands he may be
displaced by his passengers, and the fittest put in his room.’

I assume all of us are agreed that, under normal circumstances, the church should cherish a deep regard and love for its
pastor (1 Thess 5.12-13). This will be expressed in sympathy (Gal 4.15), encouragement (Heb 13.24 — salute means
to greet with kindly wishes), support (2 Tim 1.16-18), prayer (Rom 15.30), trust (1 Tim 5 19), defence (1 Cor 16.10) and
submission (Heb 13.17).

W hat concerns us here, however, is the possibility that some form of discipline is necessary. Before proceeding further,
let me make one or two general observations. The Bible leaches that all pastors are under the regulation of biblical
discipline. Take Colossians 4.17, for example, where Paul writes: Say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou
hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.

Archippus seems to have been the minister at Colosse, taking the place of Epaphras, who had left for Rome. Apparently
he was somewhat lacking in care and zeal, for Paul instructs the church to exhort him to a more faithful discharge of his
pastoral duties. ‘If they might so admonish him,’ John Robinson observes, ‘certainly they might go further with him if
there were cause.’

In the event of action being necessary, the pastor should be treated with all due respect. An affectionate appeal should
be made to him. So writes the apostle Paul: Rebuke not an elder [lit: ‘do not sharply rebuke, or reprimand’], but intreat
him as a father (1 Tim 5.1).

In any censure of a minister there will be need for grace and spirituality. A strong natural tendency would be to
immediately censure and condemn him, but whatever his fault may be, the Lord’s people should remember that they are
just as liable to commit it, and should therefore adopt a humble, forbearing and forgiving attitude. Brethren, if a man be
overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou
also be tempted (Galatians 6.1).

Such questions should be asked as: Is this the first time a problem has arisen? W as the offence an act of thoughtlessness
or of weakness? W ill the proposed action widen or heal the breach between pastor and people?

The elders, to whom the government of the church is entrusted, must make sure that scriptural order is observed. This
will mean distinguishing between private offences (or personal grievances) and public offences (or open scandals). The
former are considered in Matt 18.15-17; the latter in such scriptures as Gal 6.1, 1 Tim 5.20, Titus 3.10 and 1 Cor 5.1-5.
Scriptural standards must be maintained, and judicial fairness must always be in evidence.

Great caution needed

All possible caution should be taken. A pastor is a highly vulnerable person. He can easily become the victim of malice,
jealousy, resentment, or even party spirit. Therefore, ill-founded charges could irreparably damage not only his
reputation, but his work for our Lord Jesus Christ. W hat, then, is the counsel of God’s W ord?

Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses (1 Timothy 5.19). A comment from Eugene
Stock shows just how careful the church must be: ‘Not only is an elder (or pastor) not to be condemned upon mere gossip
or individual complaint, as in the Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 19.15); St Paul even says: “Do not receive an accusation
except . . .”’

Thorough investigation will be required. If witnesses substantiate an accusation, suitable disciplinary action will have
to be taken. Its form will depend upon the nature of the fault. In some cases, brotherly admonition and exhortation might
suffice. But continuance in public and notorious sin will require solemn admonition before the church: Them that sin
rebuke before all, that others also may fear (1 Timothy 5.20). The phrase — them that sin — translates a present
participle, which implies persistent sinning.

The offence may not justify the final act of discipline — exclusion from the church of Christ. It may simply mean that
the pastor should be relieved of his office and no longer exercise its functions. An incident mentioned in the book of Acts
may help. During Paul’s first missionary journey, John Mark abandoned the work of evangelisation and returned to his
home in Jerusalem (Acts 13.13). W hatever his motive — fear, uncertainty, homesickness, etc — Paul clearly considered
it reprehensible; and when, on the second missionary journey, it was suggested that John Mark should be taken as
companion and helper, the apostle objected, claiming that he had proved himself unfit for service. Paul thought not good
to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work (Acts 15.38). No
formal discipline took place: the man was simply denied the opportunity of further ministry. Subsequently, after proving
himself, he was again received as a fellow worker (2 Tim 4.11).

Recently articles have appeared in the Christian press suggesting that a pastor should be dismissed only for ‘heresy or
scandalous behaviour’- T he point has been made with considerable passion, but passion is no substitute for sound,
scriptural reasoning. W hat, then, arc the faults which might justify dismissal from the pastorate?

1 FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES

First, a pastor may be dismissed for repeatedly failing to perform his duties. W hen Paul writes to Timothy and says,
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, the inference is that poor quality
of service could bring both shame and disgrace. Pastors must therefore apply themselves seriously to prayerful study
(1 Tim 4.15), diligent

M any a church has suffered shipwreck due to the unchecked spiritual and m ethodological
decline of its pastor. ‘The pilot is to guide the ship... but if he either ignorantly or desperately
will run upon the sands he m ay be displaced by his passengers’ — John Robinson

preaching (2 Tim 4.2), and the general spiritual care of the church (1 Pet 5.2).

2 SPIRITUAL DECLINE

Secondly, dismissal may be necessary because of serious spiritual decline. Our Lord taught that those who lose their
devotion and dedication are worse than useless, and that they deserve to be rejected: Ye are the salt of the earth: but if
the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out . . . (Matt
5.13). If the pastor is no example, what hope can there be of the people attaining to true godliness? The apostle Paul
could write: Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ (1 Cor 11.1 ; cf Phil 3.17).

3 ADVOCACY OF IMPURE W ORSHIP

Thirdly, the church may need to dismiss a minister if he becomes tolerant of impure worship or irregular church order.
Under the old covenant, if Levitical priests adopted rites and forms in worship not appointed by God, they were degraded
from the priestly office and forbidden to officiate in the sanctuary. God said: The Levites that are gone away far from
me, when Israel went astray, which went astray away from me after their idols; they shall even bear their iniquity. . .
They shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things, in the
most holy place (Ezekiel 44.10 & 13). The principle still applies, if only elders and members would all realise it!

Let us suppose that a man is called to be the minister of a sound evangelical church. Soon after his arrival he begins to
preach on God as the God of variety, and the ‘need’ for Christians to lose their inhibitions when worshipping together.
He then introduces, very slowly at first, the essential elements of modern charismatic worship. Before long, the church
loses its biblical character as well as its reformed identity.

Should anything have been done? Yes! The elders should have taken the minister aside and solemnly warned him. Upon
his refusal to listen, they should have gone to the church to secure his removal. W hy should an innovating charismatic
be allowed to destroy a church of God?

4 LACK OF EVANGELISM
Fourthly, a complete lack of evangelistic zeal is a ground for dismissal from a ministry. Paul writes: Let a man so
account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God [ie: the truths of the Gospel]. Moreover
it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful (1 Corinthians 4.1-2). The teaching is plain: If a man wishes to
be regarded as a minister, he must show himself faithful to his trust, which involves not only maintaining the Gospel in
its integrity, but bringing the Gospel to the unsaved (Matthew 28.19).

5 FAILURE TO EDIFY

Fifthly, there may be reason to dismiss a minister when the Lord’s people are no longer being edified. After all, that is
one of the great purposes of the ministry. He gave some . . . pastors and teachers . . . for the edifying of the body of
Christ (Ephesians 4.11-12). Can a man justifiably claim these titles if he is failing to promote the spiritual growth of the
Lord’s people?

Let me express this another way. The church does not have to suffer poor, insipid, frivolous, arid, or speculative
preaching. Indeed, God’s people are told not to expose themselves to such preaching. Charge some that they teach no
other doctrine, neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying
which is in faith (1 Timothy 1.3 & 4).

6 LACK OF AFFECTION

Sixthly, a man may need to be dismissed if, through lack of affection, he alienates himself from his people. It has been
a sad experience on one or two occasions to be a visiting preacher in churches where the pastor has fallen out with the
members. One could almost cut the atmosphere with a knife. That cannot be allowed to continue. If reconciliation proves
impossible, the church has no option but to terminate the man’s pastorate.

How can such a man fulfil his ministry without love? Can he pray for the people as he ought? Can he give them gracious
and kind counsel? Can he helpfully minister to them in their sorrow and loss? No, he can do none of these things. Though
I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity [love], I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling
cymbal (1 Corinthians 13.1). And what of the church? Can it be expected to attend upon a minister who is responsible
for such division? Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly (2 Thessalonians 3.6).

7 NEGLECT OF PROBLEM S

Seventhly, and lastly, there is ground for dismissal when a pastor adamantly refuses to deal with a church problem. In
the seven letters of Revelation, Christ blames the angels (lit - messengers, ie - ministers) for the poor state of their
churches (Rev 2.5, 14, 20; 3.2 & 17).

In one case, Christ warns that if the minister fails to discipline, He Himself will step in and do so, and this will mean,
at the very least, the removal of the ministry: Repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and
will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent (Revelation 2.5).

‘By removing the candlestick is to be understood the removing of the Gospel . . . Candlestick may be here put for the
light of it, by a metonymy of the subject of the adjunct’ (Stephen Charnock). Since Christ threatens the removal of the
ministry (and, in fact, the removal of the entire church), the cowardly and unfaithful pastor should not be surprised if
he finds himself in danger of being deprived of office.

Certainly the dismissal of a pastor is a topic which demands the most careful attention. W e believe in the office of the
holy ministry, and we believe this office is worthy of the highest respect; but the church’s greatest responsibility is to
its Head, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Only by means of a godly leadership and a holy fellowship is Jesus Christ
glorified.

Robert Murray M’Cheyne