Post EGM - Truth, Half-truth or Lie by HM

At the EGM the deacons were asked if there was a retirement age for the Senior Pastor. The answer from a Deacon was that there was no retirement age in the Church Constitution. Absolutely true. We all knew that. We also read the Constitution. But did he answer the question? Was there a retirement age for the Senior Pastor?

There is also no retirement age provision in the Constitution for the associate pastors and the church staff but I am sure there is a Board policy on this. Ask any of the church staff who had retired. Unless otherwise provided for, the national retirement age is 55. Had the Board enacted a policy on the retirement age for the Senior Pastor if it is not 55? This is a very reasonable and simple question.

It is inconceivable that a Board such as ours does not have such a policy. Most of the deacons have extensive corporate and human resource experience in substantial companies and organizations. Could they have overlooked the need for such a policy? Surely in their care for the Senior Pastor they must provide for such a policy. They could not have intended for the Senior Pastor to work till he drops. There must come a point in time when the Board must allow the Senior Pastor to take it a little easier and enjoy the fruits of his labour.

We have heard that indeed there is such a policy, i.e. the retirement age is 60. We cannot prove it because Board decisions are secret and so are the minutes; the sole copy being kept by the Church Secretary. If that is true then why did the Deacon not say so? What harm could possibly come from letting us know?

He was probably constrained by the 7th resolution submitted by the concerned members. If he had admitted that there was a retirement age of 60 years that would mean that Senior Pastor had retired a couple of years ago upon reaching his 60th birthday. Therefore he would have to be reappointed by the Board for him to continue as Senior Pastor.

In that case under Rule XI(1)(a) of the Church Constitution, his reappointment would have to be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote of the voting members present at a General Meeting properly convened for that purpose. The Board did not do that. They did not seek ratification by the members. They could have side-stepped the issue by invoking Rule XIV which makes them the Sole Authority to interpret the Constitution. All the other provisions in the Constitution can be rendered quite meaningless when they invoke Rule XIV. So they could have “interpreted” that the reappointment would not need to be ratified by the members at a General Meeting. We can shout “unfair, unconstitutional and dictatorial”. They just turn a deaf ear and carry on business as usual. They have all the powers.

That being the case the Deacon could jolly well have disclosed the retirement age to us without consequences. Even if we know what can we do? We have no power to insist that Rule XI(1)(a) be complied with. The Board can thump their noses at us and we simply have to take it on the other cheek.

That was what happened to the 7 resolutions submitted for the EGM. The Board had demonstrated more than adequately that they could and would exercise the full extent of their powers as granted them by the Constitution to make sure that they and they alone determine what is to be done in and for the Church.

What is the spirit behind Rule XI(1)(a)? This rule recognizes that whilst the selection of a Senior Pastor for the Church rests with the deacons, the appointment must be supported and accepted by the congregation. The appointment or reappointment must be ratified by at least two-thirds of the voting members. Under normal circumstances the ratification would just be a formality. The members would usually support the decision of the Board. But when there is doubt then Rule XI(1)(a) becomes important.

For a Senior Pastor to perform his pastoral duties effectively he must enjoy broad support from the congregation; at least two-thirds of the membership would be considered representative of broad support. Otherwise who is the Senior Pastor to pastor? I believe that that is the spirit and intention behind Rule XI(1)(a).

By not complying with Rule XI(1)(a) it would appear that the Board was not concerned if the reappointment was supported by the congregation. Should the Board be concerned? Whilst Rule XI(1)(a) seems to say it is absolutely essential, the Board appears not to think so.

Therefore was the answer from the Deacon the truth, a half-truth or a lie? You decide.


WHM
15th September 2008