The Dreaded Vote of Confidence

Reuben Pauls

In my years spent within the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches, perhaps the most fear-producing event, from a pastor's perspective, is the "vote of confidence". In some churches, this event is constitutionally required every three years. In some, it may be called for by any member in good standing within the congregation. Other churches make provision that a pastor may request such a response to his or her ministry. Thankfully, many churches no longer have such policies.

During my growing up years, I recall several instances when our congregation had such a vote. On one occasion, the pastor lost the vote, and it was necessary for me to bid farewell to two very close friends, children of the pastor. On another, my parents lost their close friends via the same process. As I child, I found it difficult to understand that adults could not work out relationships. After all, when my sisters or brothers and I had a disagreement, my parents often demanded that we go into a room together, decreeing that none of us could come out until the difference was resolved.

In my travels across Canada these last two years, it has become apparent that we are still afraid to confront situations within our churches in a caring, up-front way. When a situation may well be resolved by a face-to-face meeting, we resort to an unbiblical, democratic, anonymous vote about those who have been entrusted to provide leadership in our churches. This is not to say that pastors are beyond evaluation. In fact, evaluation of effectiveness of pastoral ministry continues weekly as individuals meet for worship (or don't meet for worship), as boards meet (or disintegrate), as individuals come for counselling (or go elsewhere), etc.

Why did we begin with confidence votes?

Over the years, we have brought more and more elements from the surrounding culture into our churches. Adopting Robert's Rules of Order has helped move things along at some meetings, which used to be interminably long. But, when Robert's Rules are appealed to more regularly than scriptural guidelines such as "speaking the truth in love", we have a problem. When some individuals feel outnumbered and are not getting what they want, they resort to lobby tactics. Instead of praying for the discernment of the Spirit, they invite members who have been away from the church for years to come back and help them win a vote. Toss in the telephone, a wonderful gossip tool, and when a confidence vote is announced, it is little wonder that pastors feel like sitting ducks.

It is my contention that confidence votes appeared in our churches concurrently with paid pastorates. The mentality went something like this: Once we hire and pay the pastor, what mechanism exists to terminate the position? Further, with a move from lay leader to paid staff, we ceased seeing the pastoral role as a covenant responsibility and defined it as a job. Enter job descriptions, office hours, paid vacations and days off--and every member became the pastor's boss. At the same time, democracy was being hailed in the Western world as the political ideal. As democracy made its way into the churches, decision making deteriorated to casting votes--anonymously.

Into this mix we must add the fear of confrontation within many of our churches. Perhaps this is the unhealthy result of our nonresistance theology (I would hope not), but we tend to avoid making hard decisions in our denomination. So, if there is a disagreement with a sister or brother in the church, we wait until we can vote that person out of office, and then we won't have to be responsible for the pain we might inflict.

There is also one other component which must be considered. If we as Mennonite Brethren fear conflict, we also fear overt support of people in leadership. "It might go to their head!" is commonly heard. The result is that we do not do well in encouraging a pastor when the work is going well. When things go poorly, the silence becomes deafening, and the pastor feels very much out of the social circle in the very church he is trying to lead.

If things are not going seriously wrong, a short-term silence may be endured, but when it is prolonged and the only mechanism judged safe to deal with the impasse is a confidence vote, the result is inevitable.

Anywhere along this process of relationship deterioration, if the pastor or pastoral spouse give any indication of insecurity or ask for help, they may be branded as defensive or power hungry or unspiritual--even if those charges are unfounded. After all, "when you are in leadership, you should be able to take some knocks." If, in this process, a vote of confidence is anywhere on the horizon, you can rest assured that nothing will be done about the problem because then those in leadership with the pastor may have to accept responsibility for the problems and the relationships. The natural reaction is to abdicate responsibility and let an anonymous vote try to solve the leadership issue. (Unfortunately, a new pastor will probably not do everything well either.)

Problems with the vote of confidence

A first problem with having votes of confidence is that Scripture always calls us to be responsible for our relationships. In I Timothy 5:17-19, Paul encourages Timothy to respond positively to the elder who rules or directs the affairs of the church well, by giving respect and adequate pay. He then goes on to state that we are "not to entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses". When a vote of confidence is used, the "accusers" have no responsibility for their judgement whatsoever. They anonymously carry a lot of clout, without owning any responsibility for it. That is certainly not our interpretation of "covenant community" or the "peoplehood of God".

Lack of wisdom in handling written comments often contributes to pain, even when the vote is relatively positive. As the above text indicates, no accusation should be entertained unless supported by two or three witnesses". Any unsubstantiated comment which is the only one of its kind should not be shared with the pastor under evaluation. If it is, there is far too much credibility given to any "potshot". Our pastors need to be protected from such attacks by a circle of strong leaders who support them.

Matthew 18:15ff. also must be considered before any vote is taken. A basis for the negative voice(s) needs to be established. Otherwise, it is possible that a pastor may be voted out of office because of style, or lack of gifting in an area which is of special interest to a small group of people. At last reading, I fail to see where gifting is the all-important scriptural criterion for a ministry call. Spiritual qualifications are of primary concern; gifting, though important, is second.

Another problem with a confidence vote is that it gives as much authority to the least spiritually developed member as it does to those who have a history of obedience and faithfulness within the church. A new Christian recently told me, "I will not enter ministry because the carnal Christians could push me out if I did something wrong."

When we grant anonymity to carnality and say that God will speak through a one-third minority, does that not cause you some concern? Many a painful ministry termination could have been avoided had we not enshrined the vote of confidence in the policies of many of our churches.

A positive alternative

Ongoing formal evaluation by those who know what a pastor is doing would appear to be the most obvious alternative. As our churches grow, and as ministries diversify, there are few parishioners who know the scope or the demands of pastoral leadership. Ignorance is a poor basis on which to determine ongoing ministry, and that is what we encourage when each member is given a ballot to judge our pastors.

It is also not wise to appoint people from the periphery of the church to be a pastoral support committee. Often, these individuals will become the lightning rods for malcontents. When they come onto such a committee, these individuals often have quite a positive picture of the church; when they conclude their term, they are often disgruntled and frustrated.

The people best in position to offer evaluation, both positive and negative, are the spiritually discerned leaders who know what is going on in the church and who have been judged by the congregation to be qualified to lead. Call them the Board of Elders or Church Council or Deacons or Leadership Team--the title doesn't matter as long as they are the spiritual leaders. These are the individuals who know the joys and pains of church leadership. They are also in positions of influence, and, as mature Christians, should be willing to speak the encouraging or difficult truths to the pastor in a safe environment (such as a board meeting).

I have yet to hear from a pastor who would not rather hear about some difficulty in ministry from those who support and love him than from those who constantly oppose him.

When those selected for their spiritual qualifications (I Timothy 3, Titus 1, I Peter 5, etc.) are given the responsibility for ongoing evaluation, with occasional formal evaluations, the results of which are shared with the congregation for ratification, less painful ministry terminations and often longer term ministries will result.

Reuben Pauls is Executive Minister for the Canadian MB Conference.

Return to the M.B.Herald Vol. 36, No. 11 Home Page