It seems too easy for Churches and ministers to get into such a situation (see the previous post). There is a tendency to work a lot on trust in Churches. Further, there is a tendency for ministers to feel very awkward talking about money. Yet one needs to have a signed and ratified contract of employment -- for the protection not only of the minister, but of the Church. It is anyway a legal necessity. A contract is needed not only because Churches may renege on agreements, but because Church office-bearers turn over, and details may be tangled, especially where agreements are cobbled together over years. In my own situation, while the picture is clear when one stands back, things are tangled close up. A contract is all the more important because both Church and minister traditionally shun the courts. Then from the minister's point of view, either he (or she) must be silent, no matter how large the loss, or he speaks up. Yet speaking up is not expected of a minister. My own Church wrote to me: "To speak of 'a broken promise' is unworthy of a pastor," which is something of a classic. What then does one do with broken promises? Beyond this of course may still lie issues of redress, and then there may be unequal playing fields. OBSERVATION: One has to have a "hard contract" in place even before a call, even if it seems to be un-Church-like.
No comments:
Post a Comment