The pastoral search process can be a bit like dating. Sometimes, a pastor and a church will hit it off and be an obvious fit. They, like a young couple, go on to establish a relationship. Other times, there are obstacles. Sometimes, the couple is not a good match, and hopefully, they learn this early, and little time is wasted on further dating. The worst thing is when either or both ignore the warning signs and enter into an unhealthy relationship. Something similar happens to pastors as well—and churches. Consider a few warning signs that the pastor/church relationship may not be advisable.

The church expects a pastor who is identical to their previous one.

Pastors leave. Sometimes, they may be greatly loved by the church’s people but get called away. It may be to another church or ministry. It may be to teach. Perhaps the pastor retired. It could also be that the pastor died. When a pastor leaves, a church should go through a mourning process. They need to work on issues that may have come up over time. They also need to work on unreasonable assumptions about their next pastor.

I know of a church that chewed through four pastors over several years. These pastors were not perfect, but they did not deserve what the church did to them. Most of the problems stemmed from the church’s love for their previous pastor. He had been there for over two decades and was the only pastor many knew. Many of them had been brought to Christ by that pastor. In their eyes, he was the perfect pastor—the very definition of “pastor.” When new pastors were brought in, they expected them to be identical to their previous pastor—the same approach to ministry, personality, preferences, etc. The problem is that they were not looking for the pastor God wanted them to have—the pastor they needed. Of course, they spiritualized it. They concluded that God had blessed them under the previous pastor, so it was only through an identical pastor that God would bless and grow the church. They failed to look for God’s choice—the one God knew they needed at that moment.

The church demands a pastor to be nothing like their previous one.

Many churches take the opposite approach to pastoral searches. They may have experienced negatives with one pastor, so they grill candidates to ensure they are nothing like the previous one. They usually ask questions like: “What would you do if…?” Or “Would you ever…?” It is easy to lose sight of the fact that such questions may not be so quickly answered. Many such situations have nuances that would need to be considered. But because so-and-so did A, they want to be assured the candidate would never do A. There is little consideration about whether A may be what the church needs.

The church lacks trust.

A church may place many rules on its new pastor. I heard of a church that demanded the pastor always wear a dress shirt and tie—even when mowing the church’s lawn (which was his responsibility). I’ve seen others place extra limits on days off out of fear the pastor might find a way to abuse them. I know of a church where the people insisted the pastor be in the office between nine AM and five PM every weekday. It didn’t matter why the pastor was gone—visiting, counseling, meetings—if people drove by and didn’t see his vehicle at the church, he would hear a complaint with questions about what he was doing while “on the clock.”

Here’s a good rule of thumb for churches to consider. It also applies to the pastoral candidate. If you do not trust the candidate to do the job without micro-managing, you are implying this person is not qualified for the role. Remember, an elder is to be “above reproach” and “self-controlled” (1 Tim 3:2). If you feel the need to control, why consider this person? If you are this way with all candidates, the congregation is probably not ready to call a pastor.

How does this relate to the candidate being considered? If a church demonstrates, during the process, that they do not trust you, consider running for the hills. Do not accept such a church without assurance that it is God’s will. You will find yourself in great trouble. In the end, you and several people in the church will probably be hurt.

The church insists on absolute agreement.

This one seems like a good thing but can be dangerous. No two Christians agree with each other on everything. I tell people, “If I ever find anyone with whom I agree on everything, I will have myself committed because I’m talking to myself.” Don’t get me wrong. I’m not encouraging churches to accept a doctrinal free-for-all. Insist that the pastoral candidate agrees on the essentials. You may also insist they agree on specific secondary issues—especially those that define your church. But I’ve seen churches go overboard with it.

I know a beloved pastor taught you X, and you are sure he would never lead you astray. It may also be that you heard it from a famous preacher. However, that does not make what you were taught true. I knew one woman who would get angry with any pastor who disagreed with John MacArthur. The church should ensure the Word of God is the authority, not the Word of Pastor So-and-so. Oh, and neither is the word of Granny (or Grandpa, or Mom, or Dad, etc.). If the candidate disagrees on a lesser issue, give the benefit of the doubt at least until you find out if there is a good reason for this difference. Some of the worst errors I was taught came from pastors and teachers of whom I was very fond. Anyone who tried to correct these errors in those churches would have been quickly shown the door. A church should be dedicated to the truth, even if it differs from what they were taught.

The church assumes more agreement than there is.

This statement may seem contradictory, but it is closely related. In the previous section, a church insists on such agreement that they dig deeply into the doctrinal minutia when evaluating a candidate. But this church does no such checking. They may not even check on those things which are essential. Remember, there are several tiers of doctrines. The first tier is those things that define our faith. There must be agreement on these if the church is to be a real church and the gospel is to be preached and taught. For example, to deny the resurrection is to deny our faith. At the bottom are matters of conscience, which should never divide brothers. Between tier one and matters of conscience are tier two doctrines. These are not definitive of the faith. You can believe one side or the other and still be a Christian. Examples might be election/predestination, eternal security, eschatology, etc.

While these second-tier issues should not cause problems, churches and pastors can feel strongly about them. In my denomination, there is broad leeway in these areas. However, some churches will only consider candidates who stand on these a certain way. While I may disagree with them doing this, it can be helpful to at least let a candidate know that. For example, if the pastor holding and teaching a particular eschatological view will be problematic and cause strife, it might be wise not to consider that pastor. Of course, a better course of action would be to learn why the pastor’s view differs from that of the church. But not all Christians are mature enough to do this. I know of a church where the church did minimal checking of doctrinal questions. They seemed to be oblivious to the fact that others might believe differently. After accepting the call, the pastor quickly discovered that his positions on some issues were alien to them and aggravating. They insisted the pastor agree with them but failed to consider that in the candidating process.

Often, this happens when the church is desperate for a pastor. In some churches, finding a candidate and calling them to come to the church can take years. In one of my churches, they had been without a pastor or even a candidate for over 18 months. This condition often leads to warm-body syndrome. At a certain point, we can get to where any warm body is acceptable. Think of how many people have entered into bad relationships because they are convinced no one will ever love them. Then they jump into marriage with the first person to show them even a little bit of love. The same can happen when either the church or the candidate gets desperate.

So, a church should not go overboard to ensure the candidate agrees on everything. They should be open to being taught. For example, most Christians are unaware of how many eschatological views and nuances there are within evangelicalism. Almost all are orthodox. But I’ve also found that when a church discovers you hold a different view, one can see the panic in their eyes. So, churches should also know their limits, how far is too far, and what doctrines are non-negotiable.

The church and candidate leave essential issues unaddressed.

It can be hard to discuss some issues. There are almost as many reasons for this as churches and pastors. The candidate may be unwilling to bring up salary, vacation, insurance, etc. Often, this springs from a fear of being seen as a hireling. The church may also be reluctant to address these. It could be because they assume pastoral ministry is a calling, and such discussions are unimportant. On the other hand, they may be worried that what they have to offer is not enough—desperation can also creep in here. Conversely, the candidate might fear that the church will say no because they ask for too much.

The candidate needs to come to grips with the fact that God has called him to serve churches and provide for his family. Don’t forget that Paul (praised as a tentmaker) also said he had a right to the support he rejected (1 Cor 9:12-15). He also said those who teach the gospel should make their living from it (1 Cor 9:14) . Finally, he said that the worker is worthy of his wage (1 Timothy 5:18). All of these were in the context of supporting gospel workers. While being a hireling is dangerous, the opposite danger is falsely assuming that our calling requires us to ignore our family’s needs. These are two extremes; like most extremes, the truth is found in the middle. The congregation should support a pastor. That support should consider the pastoral family’s realistic needs and be sufficient to cover these, as a minimum. A church that refuses adequate compensation for its pastor demeans the office and devalues the ministry. There are times when this is not possible. Such a church should admit this and strive to overcome it.

In conclusion, a pastoral candidate and church should be candid. Neither should seek to “put on a pretty face.” In the end, you may find that, instead, they were trying to “make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.” There will be enough difficulty for the pastor and church to become one—no need to add extra trouble. Just because the candidate wants a church does not mean the first one available is a good fit. And just because the church is desperate for a new pastor does not mean they are ready to receive one. Too many have been hurt—pastors and church folk. The best approach is honesty in the process and an honest look at oneself—the church and pastor should each look in a mirror before considering the call. If we truly want God’s will, this should not cause anxiety. “No” is an acceptable answer when being considered for a church or when considering a candidate for a church.