Dear Sir,
I feel the subject of retiring pastors requires a response. Taking points in order that the writer makes:
1. It is sinful to hang on to power or position out of a sense of our own importance.
2. Coming to ‘more virtuous arguments’, I find these as sinful as the first.
3. The provision of retirement accommodation is the business of the man himself and not the church. He will have had a contract of employment and, unless agreed beforehand, he is in much the same position as any other man. He alone is responsible for the welfare of his family. Others in the church will also be facing an uncertain future with reduced income. A bit of forward planning would have been wise – but it’s not the responsibility of the church. Why should one man in the church be given preferential treatment?
The pastor, as we use the word today, acts as an elder and that is what is wrong. I have met few pastors who qualify as elders in terms of Paul’s qualifications set out in 1 Timothy 3.2-7. No newly-ordained young man, fresh out of college, could possibly qualify as an elder.
4. I agree that to require a pastor to move to a different area on retirement is not scriptural in any way.
5. Retirement is not scriptural, but that’s an irrelevance because it was unknown in all areas of society at the time. Most people died long before what we call retirement age.
Scripture does indeed teach the value of wisdom and old age, but that doesn’t answer the question of why churches often seek a young pastor to lead the church in the first place.
6. The pastor is a member of the church and to treat any member with disdain is not right. They may not know what to do with retired pastors, but they seem to know what to do with others in the congregation of a similar age and treat them with respect. The whole assumption in the closing points is that pastors have given a lifetime of service and should be treated preferentially.
Yours sincerely,
