Imagine starting a ministry with your spouse. You two put up the money for the first space you rent. The first space isn't large so many times you have to invest large sums of your own money to make ends meet. You also have After 5 years you have enough for a mortgage.
You purchase a building that can seat 200. It's difficult at first because you initially don't have enough members to cover the increased mortgage and bills, but after 10 years you have enough to purchase a large space. This new space can seat 5,000.
After 5 years you start having some issues with the board members. There are disagreements. You rub some of them the wrong way.
You placed a clause in the Bylaws that allows the board to remove a Pastor from office if, say, 80% of the board can agree. Some individuals with influence pull some strings, and you're out.
Now, after giving your life and literally tens of thousands of dollars to this ministry, you're out of a job. You aren't even a MEMBER in the church you founded with blood sweat and tears.
Doesn't seem fair.
The matter of succession is a little more complicated. Still, if I founded this church, I should be able to choose who the successor will be.
Why?
Because I know the challenges better than any board member. I know the requisite personality traits better than any board member. I know the job.
See, this is the kinda stuff I was thinking...
Part of me is like "well the church belongs to God... it's not man's church, it's the Lord's church." But the practical side of me says that the church is a non-profit organization that was founded and built by the Peebles. It is their organization with members. From a legal perspective, it is their organization with members. They were likely listed as the incorporating officers when the ministry was first incorporated, and as the directors when they got their first 501(c)(3). They invested not only their own money, but also their sweat, their tears, their elbow grease, and many, many prayers. It's not unreasonable to say that the church's name is what it is because of the Peebles (in Christ, of course).
As far as the bylaws, I have no idea what theirs state, but I wouldn't allow for the removal of a founding pastor without a unanimous vote AND a church vote... unless there was some sinful activity going on. But just over a difference of opinions? Nah, that's just not God. It's just not.
Another thing I thought is this: if pastors have the authority to name people to head up certain ministry auxiliaries, and that's okay with us, why wouldn't it be okay for the pastors to name their successors? If you trust this pastor to lead you, to shepherd you, to give you direction, and to name leaders to the departments in which you serve, why wouldn't you trust him/her to have the wisdom to determine who can take the reigns after their demise, whether the person is kin or not?
And after saying all that, I still feel some kinda way about singular leadership so like I said, I can argue both sides. It's complicated.
