A pastoral vacancy can do real damage

In the past I have been an advocate of a ‘pastoral vacancy’. As Tony Bradley argues in his booklet Understanding the Interregnum (Grove, Cambridge 1996) it provides a “window of opportunity… for assessing what sort of team we are and what sort of leader we need next”.

A ‘pastoral vacancy’ can prove to be ‘a significant interval’ for a church. The significance of this interval has been well expressed by an American denominational officer addressing a ‘vacant’ congregation:

“This could be a most significant time for your congregation. It is a time when you can review the past with its symbols and images of identity and purpose as well as its losses and disappointments. You can allow yourself time to feel those losses and the elements of leadership that are sure to follow along an effective ministry. You can also begin to value the strength and gifts of people in the congregation who step up now to offer leadership, knowing that, with the loss of a significant leader, others will be called upon to provide wisdom and guidance. You can begin to glimpse new opportunities made possible because of the fact that your pastor has left. Above all, as a congregation, you can take responsibility for identifying new directions for your church’s ministry, a new vision for your church’s mission and a ‘grassroots’ definition of the church’s purpose. This is and has always been your church. Your former pastor believed that and sought to serve your mutual understandings. If the new pastor is to do the same, it will be necessary for you as a congregation to clarify your own church’s mission” (quoted by William Bud Phillips, Pastoral Transitions (Alban, Bethesda, Maryland 1988).

I used to say that churches need time to ‘grieve’ their former pastor. I argued that the relationship between pastor and people is in some ways similar to a marriage relationship – and just as a after the death of a partner a hasty re-marriage is inadvisable, so too is a hasty calling of a new pastor. Indeed, I said that as a ‘rule of thumb’ the pastoral vacancy should be at least as many months long as the years of the former pastor. However, everything depends on the length of the ministry. My first ministry was thirteen years in length, whereas my second ministry was twenty-one years in length. On reflection a pastoral vacancy may not always be a good thing.

I recently came across some interesting research by Bob Jackson, the Director of the Church Growth Centre at St John’s College, Nottingham:

“Church growth is 50 per cent about helping new people join and 50 per cent about stopping existing members leaving. The main point at which Anglican churches have been losing people in recent decades has been during lengthy vacancies of six months or more between vicars… The longer the vacancy the more the church shrinks… Much of the average loss during a vacancy is permanent. In fact the size of the average vacancy loss is such that it would seem that vacancies are the occasion of most of the Church of England’s recent attendance loss. Churches with vicars in place have on average been steady or even growing – the damage is being done in vacancies.” (What Makes Churches Grow? Church House Publishing, 2015).

So what should churches do? Currently within a British Baptist setting churches are dependent upon a slow and unimaginative system of ministerial settlement, in which churches are encouraged not to head-hunt nor to advertise, but instead leave matters to the judgement of ‘regional ministers’. Furthermore, churches are told to pursue just one name at a time. Not surprisingly most pastoral vacancies are far longer than six months. As far as I am aware, there are no statistics available, but one often hears of churches where the pastoral vacancy has lasted two or more years. Perhaps the answer is to create a new system which recognises that we live in a different era where Youtube, Skype and Facebook is the norm; and that which therefore encourages churches to take the initiative to seek for their next leader; and where ‘regional ministers’ no longer control, but simply advise churches in their care. For if Bob Jackson is right, a pastoral vacancy of longer than six months can do real damage.


  1. I wonder whether Jackson’s research compared churches where there is in position a trained and competent laity plus one or more retired or other clergy who are authorised to do those things which in an Anglican church the laity cannot touch against churches where sacraments, etc,have to be put in the hands of outsiders? The vicar is so often the only person trained, qualified or allowed to lead in an Anglican church. Baptist churches are not the same, though too many ministers do not see it as their role to train and delegate. Nevertheless I’m sure there is truth in BM’s helpful remarks – let us hope the BU takes these points seriously, especially in the light of the significantly reduced funding for regional ministers.

  2. I agree with Russell’s comments about how Baptist congregations are different to Anglican churches. Paul draws reference to his second ministry of twenty one years, and in that particular case, whilst the church is still seeking a leader for the ministry team, it isn’t actually in ‘pastoral vacancy’ as they have two very competent ministers in post.
    As a regional minister I would strongly question the assertion that in the current scheme we ‘control’ rather than advise, but I would concur that the settlement process could certainly benefit from a technological streamlining.

  3. You have missed a very important point about pastoral vacancies. The disruptive effect it has on the children of the pastor, who often have to be uprooted from their school and friends.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *