We do not hire or fire our priests. We do pay them, however. Priests are assigned to parishes by the bishop or metropolitan. Our opinion on a potential priest is always sought and so far as I can remember, is always honored. Similarly, though we cannot fire a priest, we certainly can complain to the bishop or metropolitan znd if it is the sense of the parishioners that a priest ought to go, the bishop usually will remove the priest. If a hierarch didn’t do the foregoing, it likely wouldn’t be worth the hassle of a troublesome parish. On the other hand, the hierarch can always, at least arguably, close the parish and try to take the assets. Priests cannot serve without the permission of the bishop nor can they travel from parish to parish to celebrate the Divine Liturgy without his permission. Once they are in a particular diocese or metropolis, they cannot transfer to another without the permission of his hierarch and the receiving hierarch.
The laity has no say at all over the sacramental life of the parish. That is solely the province of the priest and/or the bishop...but we can always complain and we are usually listened to.
I have seen it happen that a parish gets into a fight with its bishop and loses big time. In that instance, the parish was simply wrong and arrogant and deserved what I got. No other parish in the metropolis supported it against the bishop.
Ok, fine.
The Southern Baptists don't call it "hiring", but they do often also (or at least used to) supply a residence for whomever it was who was called, and that man's wife & children, if any.
Can you step away from all the rest which followed long enough to see not only what I was saying, but to then compare things --- as compared to Scripture also?
Having been raised Baptist, but now being United Methodist, I’ve seen both the ‘independent local church’ concept and the ‘regional bishop’ concept at work.
There is nothing equivalent to a metropolitan in either system. Baptists certainly don’t have anything beyond the authority of the local church pastor as a guide for any individual church. Southern Baptists have the convention, but that really exerts no authority at all over local churches. Those churches are free to enter or leave the association at will and any number of times. It is basically a cooperative arrangement for missions and Christian education, but even that is entirely voluntary.
The Methodists are, I think, an effort to mirror the Anglican system, which they didn’t do a bad job of, except there is no equivalent to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In other words, there is no ‘bishop of bishops’.
Our bishops are over a geographic region (that we call a conference) much larger than a city, and their hold is important regarding placement of ministers in churches, but beyond that, the region is normally so many churches that they lose any ability truly to provide any kind of direction. Our ‘district superintendents’ might be a better parallel to a metropolitan in that they are generally centered on a major city in a smaller area within the bishops geographic region, but their authority is limited, dependent on a bishop to react to a district superintendent’s concerns.
Beyond that, we have no authority that seems to have the authority to enforce our doctrine and principles.
In that regard, I appreciate the Orthodox churches. They strike me as much more faithful.
The advantage of the Baptist churches, of course, is that the people definitely are the enforcers of their beliefs, and a pastor can be out on his ear if he goes astray from the doctrine of the people. For the most part, this is a good thing if there is a knowledgeable people. That isn’t always the case, though.
The Mormons don't.
However; a stipend is given for expenses.
And PP releases tissue material for DONATIONS; too.