Restoring Kingdom Builders

I’ve seen it all my life.

Maybe you have, too.

Something ominous happens at work … or inside your family … or at church … but nobody is willing to talk about it openly.

Somebody lost their job … or went to jail … or is no longer attending your church … but everything is hush hush.

Is that wise?

The reason I bring this up is because most church leaders that I know are great at covering up stuff.

Let me explain.

Imagine that some individuals inside a church of 300 attendees band together to change the music during worship.  They don’t like guitars and drums and want the church to use the piano and organ instead.

So they begin making demands of the pastor and governing board, threatening to leave the church – and take their offerings with them – unless the pastor capitulates in their favor.

While there are pastors who would cave in at this point, let’s pretend that the pastor of this church refuses to meet the group’s demands.

So the group – composed of 35 people – all leaves the church together and forms another church at the local high school cafeteria (where they can’t have a piano or organ, but that’s another story).

What should the pastor and governing board tell the congregation about what happened?

Here are some options:

(a) Pretend those people never existed and refuse to talk about them again.

(b) Talk about them only inside the confines of staff and board meetings.

(c) Only talk about them if church attendees ask about them.

(d) Tell the whole church during Sunday worship … or in an all-church letter … or in a public meeting.

Which option above would you prefer?

The vast number of leaders I have known would opt for option “a,” including taking their names off the membership roster, church directory, and newsletter list as soon as possible.

Option “b” is a given.  Only certain churches would opt for option “c.”

And few if any churches would opt for option “d.”

However, congregational consultant Peter Steinke has a different take on this matter in his insightful book Congregational Leadership in Anxious Times:

“A conflict-free congregation is incongruent not only with reality but even more with biblical theology.  Jesus upset many people emotionally.  The life of Jesus takes place against a backdrop of suspicion, opposition, and crucifixion.  The Christian story is underlined with conflict.  Early on, we encounter the emotional reactivity of the religious leaders, who see Jesus as a threat to their authority and belief system.  Eventually the tension between the roaming preacher and the established religious order comes to a dramatic point.  Tension leads to crucifixion.”

Most of us would agree with those seven sentences.

Steinke continues:

“The church has had divisions from its inception.  No doubt, it has fought senseless battles, squandered its resources on frivolous issues, sent negative signals to society, shattered its unity, and forfeited chances to share its goodwill.  Some churches work through the reactive period and emerge stronger.  Others shuffle from crisis to crisis.  What makes the difference in outcomes?”

(By the way, don’t you just love Steinke’s writing?  He’s good.)

And then he says this:

“Nowhere in the Bible is tranquility preferred to truth or harmony to justice.  Certainly reconciliation is the goal of the gospel, yet seldom is reconciliation an immediate result.  If people believe the Holy Spirit is directing the congregation into the truth, wouldn’t this alone encourage Christians who have differing notions to grapple with issues respectfully, lovingly, and responsively?”

Hmm.  Do you agree with the author at this point?

Then how about this question:

“If potent issues are avoided because they might divide the community, what type of witness is the congregation to the pursuit of truth?”

Using the group of 35 people I mentioned earlier as an example, should the pastor and leaders tell the congregation anything about their departure?

Here is one final statement from Steinke:

“In the early stages of a conflict, it is almost impossible to over-inform.  As much information as possible is needed.  Providing information tends to minimize the need for people to create information for themselves through gossip and embellishments of what they have heard from rumor.  By communicating forthrightly, leaders also treat the members as mature adults who can handle whatever information is shared, not as children who need to be protected from bad news.”

I do not pretend to have the final answer concerning this dilemma, but more and more, I lean toward truth over tranquility.

Someone recently told me about a controversy that surfaced in his church.  Within one week, half the people had left.

This stuff happens, and because pastors know how emotionally reactive some people are whenever they share potentially volatile information, most pastors choose not to mention such issues in public.

Where do you stand on this issue?

For example, if a staff pastor suddenly vanished from your church, do you want the leaders to tell the congregation why?  Or do you think such an announcement would be divisive?

Truth or tranquility?

Your call.