Instability in the pastoral office is the common fact and every pastor, sooner or later, meets the question, Shall I change my field? One cause of this is to be found, doubtless, in the restless spirit of the age, which is impatient with the old and ever clamoring for the new. This is specially the case in our country and is one of the natural results of rapid growth and a widely-diffused spirt of enterprise.  
I. Evils of Change.
 
The evils of a change of field are many and serious and only the most imperative reasons will justify a pastor in making it. For, 1. It involves a serious loss in the pastor’s working capital, for the confidence and love of a congregation, which a true minister acquires, constitute a chief element in his power. These, however unlike mere popularity, are only slowly acquired; but, once secured, they add immensely to the value of his public and private work. But this advantage is all relinquished on leaving the field, and must be again slowly acquired at another post. A pastor’s power also to benefit a people by a wise adaptation of his work to their character and needs must depend largely on his knowledge of them; but in making a change this is lost, and can be regained only by similar study of a new congregation. 2. Few ministers widen their range of original investigation after their first pastorate. At the first post they are compelled to push out into new lines of thought, but in a new field the temptation to use old subjects, if not old sermons, often proves irresistible, and their life-thinking is likely to move round [p. 121] in the same narrow range. Pastoral change often thus checks intellectual and theological growth. 3. This restless expectation of change also discourages broad, comprehensive plans for the instruction and development of the church, and tempts the minister to aim exclusively at immediate results. Hence, his sermons are largely sentimental or sensational, confined within a limited range of topics, and the development of church-life is correspondingly dwarfed. 4. The marked decline in public respect for the ministry is probably in part a result of this feverish restlessness, which weakens confidence in them as men of high, unselfish purpose, and compels a community to regard the minister no longer as a permanent force in its life, but rather as a transient sensation.
 
II. Inadequate Causes of Change.
 
Many causes operate to unsettle a pastor which ought not to produce that result; indeed, some of them, if rightly interpreted, would have served rather to strengthen than to dissolve the pastoral relation. Thus, 1. Mental depression. A sedentary, studious life often induces abnormal nervous conditions, and the hypochondriac misinterprets the feelings of the people and underestimates the results of his ministry. A change is in consequence resolved on, which subsequent developments show to have been wholly unnecessary. 2. The loss of popularity. This is often due to real defects in the character and work of the pastor, and its true remedy is not a change of field, but a correction of his faults. Imperfect preparation has, perhaps, made his sermons commonplace and his pulpit a failure. Or he has failed to cultivate executive, pastoral, and social power, and, as a result, the church is not in effective working condition, and no bonds of personal sympathy and affection bind pastor to people. Or there are imperfections [p. 122] in his spirit and life, and these forbid confidence and respect on the part of the congregation. In all such cases a loss of popularity does not indicate so much a change of field as a change in the spirit, plan, and work of the pastor, for these defects would in any field soon lead to the same result. 3. Difficulties in the church. Such trials enter more or less into every minister’s lot, but they may be no indication of duty to change. The trial may be sent as a discipline, designed to develop, through fai............