Can Pastors Sue?
A member of my congregation came to me recently in distress about her father. Her father is a pastor who was informed by his eldership on a Saturday that his time was up and that Sunday was his last day. He needed to pack up and clear up and be out of his office by Monday. In the weeks that followed the turmoil led him to be hospitalised with heart problems.
There are no doubt two or more sides to the story, but the family perceives that he has been harshly dealt with. The manner of his dismissal is also regarded to be unconstitutional and grossly unfair. They also perceive a lack of support from the denominational body, even to the extent that the man responsible for pastors told him he would personally remove him from the church if he tried to go back.
Lets assume that this version of events is correct for the sake of this article. What remedy can the pastor have to ensure [at least for future pastors], the church [and the denomination] have dismissal processes that allow procedural fairness and natural justice [not to mention conformity to constitutional process]?
Can the pastor refer this matter to an Industrial Tribunal or mediator? Can the pastor sue?
I’m against pastors hiring a lawyer and suing in a civil case. I am increasingly in favour of the pastor referring the matter to an industrial tribunal, in extreme and rare cases, if he deems that it is in the best interests of the church and denomination. Sometimes the cycle needs to be broken, and if the denomination lacks the ethical resolve to force the churches to adopt fair procedures then the law can.
Pulling Out The You-Can’t-Sue Reference
In discussion with other pastors on this matter I can bet that the standard verse will be pulled on me:
1 Cor 6:1If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgement instead of before the saints? 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church![a] 5I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6But instead, one brother goes to law against another-and this in front of unbelievers!
7The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
As with any verse pulled out of Scripture, every text has a context. Paul here slams the believers at Corinth for engaging in civil litigation over trivial matters that were essentially between believers. He encourages them to settle with each other, or handle their cases before a fellow believer [appointed as a judge or mediator], rather than having it judged in a system that is essentially outside of the realm of the kingdom [especially for kingdom matters]. Anyone who tries to use this as one size fits all approach to whether or not a pastor can sue is stretching the hermeneutical rubber band to breaking point.
I maintain that the context of unfair dismissal, and in situations where representation to the denominational body has not resulted in any remedy or justice, the involvement of an industrial tribunal is an option. I do not believe it violates the intent of what Paul talks about.
To be summarily or unfairly dismissed is not a trivial matter. It is very harmful to pastors and their families and also to their financial well being. It is damaging to the church and to future pastors.
These matters should always be dealt with within the confines of the church or denomination. However, at times, justice, fairness, or due process is not forthcoming and people may rightfully consider seeking the ruling of an industrial tribunal.
How Churches and Law Work Hand In Hand
Churches in Australia have no choice but to interact with the law, and with government oversight. Our constitutions need to be drafted correctly, and subsequently our meetings and decisions need to made in a manner that accords with the constitution and rules governing incorporated associations [if your church is one].
Property matters also fall under local government jurisdiction, and we need to comply with regulations and building codes. Our fire safety and OH&S measures are audited and we have minimum standards to meet there. Our kitchens need to conform to hygiene standards, and there are rules governing what we can and can’t prepare and sell onsite in relation to food.
In Queensland all people from the church working with children need a Blue Card which involves a police check. These records need to be kept up to date and regular compliance with these stringent standards need to be observed.
I have a friend who is a lawyer with a fearsome reputation. He is regularly involved in cases where ministers who have abused people sexually are sued. Another friend is a detective who regularly jails ministers and church officials who commit or cover up sexual assault. Now try and tell me that we don’t have to be relevant to the law of the land in terms of employment.
Our finances need to be properly audited, our taxes [where applicable] properly paid. Where we have tax-deductible building funds we need to conform to the rules set by the Taxation office.
There are other ways in which we cooperate with, and conform to the laws and requirements of government bodies. Why then should the laws and standards governing employment somehow be different?
We have a duty to do the right thing in terms of employment standards, and when we don’t we deserve to be held accountable. The involvement of an industrial tribunal can bring accountability to situations where no other remedy is provided.
Fight Or Flight?
It does potentially nuke the career of that pastor. That is why I said at the outset that in extreme and rare cases this can be warranted. Sometimes pastors need to put their necks on the line and stand up for justice and ethics in the church. Some feel that they would rather walk away, and that is often advisable. It does allow that cycle to be repeated though. The next unsuspecting coot walks straight into it and a few years down the track the same people who mugged the last guy will mug him. One more broken and bruised pastor, and family. Nice.
I have found myself in a potential situation where I considered this. As it turned out I didn’t need to and the abuse of process I was victim to backfired on the architect and I survived. Had I not, I would have looked seriously at a scenario where the involvement of a tribunal could have forced the church to adopt minimum standard of fair process and natural justice. I would not have sought punitive damages or any financial remedy [other than monies owed but not paid to me]. The intent would have been to force the church to meet secular standards. This in a situation where the church not only failed to meet the higher ethical standards of the kingdom, but even failed miserably to match secular standards.
Mediation
One of our ministry leaders in our church is an industrial mediator. He is another option which is one removed from a tribunal. The involvement of a mediator should be a first step, if there is no prospect of a hearing from either the church or the denomination. The mediator doesn’t take sides, and informs both parties of the requirements, and where they haven’t been met. A mediator may well tell a pastor that he is dreaming and needs to move on. They may well tell the church to get its act together lest they get hosed by a tribunal. Sometimes, the involvement of a mediator comes up with a satisfactory outcome to all parties, for a fraction of the price, and a fraction of the damage.
If a situation cannot be resolved by mediation and there is intransigence on the part of the offending party, a scorched earth policy kicks in because there are no immediate winners to a tribunal case involving a pastor and a church. The winners are the pastors who are subsequently called to the church. They enjoy a level playing field and the power base have at least one hand tied behind their back. Now they can only wield one baseball bat, and the world is a better place.


to me it boils down to calling…and not to the church..but the area.
If God has called me to a ‘place’…then the church is the vehicle to reach that area. It sounds ruthless…its not. Pastors are here to mobilise the army, get the resources to reach people in the area they are called to…to hear about Jesus and become a dispiple of his.
If dysfunctional, power hungry elders are getting in the way, and you are called to the area…DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO.
I am getting increasinly intolerant of petty political games…pathetic!
If you cant..then plant a new church in the area, and take whoever will come with you to it.
God is not interested in your church continuing, He is concerned about the kingdom.
I can identify with some of your sentiment, but the last thing we need is more church plants that come from splits. The end result is more pain spread across more lives?
I would rather that the ruling power base are challenged and held accountable, so that a split is avoided, and the church can grow through the challenge and be a healthier church.
I have seen this happen twice now, and I am glad I didn’t cut and run but I TOTALLY understand those that have.
I think that if I cannot live out my calling in a particular area God is beg enough to allow me to do it elsewhere? The main thing is that I am living my life in obedience to the Great Commission. Where I am is important but not everthing.
I agree with you entirely.
But what if the denom heads wont join in? your left with the pastor and his family being torn apart…maybe never to recover.
One of my friends was shafted, and could have fought it, but did not. half the people left the church anyway. Sometimes a church split will occur no matter if you do ‘leave quietly’. I reckon he should have started a new church without the jerks who had shown nothing but the spirit of the evil one.
Here in NZ the only range within IR law where a dismissed employee has no legal recourse is a pastor/minister of religion. The law recognises that God can remove a ‘call’ as determined by the leadership. Interesting perspective!
I think that applies to Anglican and Catholic but not others. I stand to correction. Some say that you can’t seek redress through a tribunal on the basis that “it’s a calling not a job”.
Try tell that to your wife and kids when you have to pull them out of school and pack up the house mid-term. It may be a calling but their responsibility is to act with fairness, accountability, and ethics.
Sorry, post 5 was in response to Mark. Anon I would still be VERY hesitant to split a church. If you can, leave but encourage the people of the church to bring its leadership to account.
I have seen this happen. In once case the leadership, controlled by a Secretary, refused to call a church meeting when it was revealed that the pastor no longer shared the basis of faith of the church.
The members read the Constitution and worked out that with a required number of members signatures they could call for a church meeting in writing and the Secretary was bound by the Con to call it in 3 weeks. Through that process the truth came out, and when it had all worked out the Secretary’s control was broken and that church is now a healthy church with a new era of collegiality and accountability.
They could have split and founded yet another church from bitter seed, but they persevered and now they are reaping the fruit.
I accept that in some rare cases a church must be spilled, but that is a very BIG thing