According to widespread statistics, 1500 to 1900 pastors leave church ministry every month due to burnout, moral failure, or forced termination – most through forced termination.
And yet according to Alan Klaas – who investigated the reasons why pastors were forced out in various Christian denominations – only 7% of the time do pastors leave because of personal misconduct, while 45% of the time they leave because of a minority faction.
And much of the time, that faction is composed of the official church board, whether they’re called elders, deacons, or the church council.
The scenario usually looks like this:
Someone on the church board becomes upset with the pastor. The grievance might concern the way the pastor does his job. It’s just as likely that the grievance is personal.
He or she does not speak with the pastor personally about the matter but talks to one or more board members instead, who add their own grievances to the mix. In fact, it’s common for personal grievances to morph into official charges.
The pastor almost never has any idea that these grievances are being discussed.
When a few regular attendees step forward with grievances against the pastor – even though the number of dissatisfied individuals may barely reach 5% of the congregation – some board members will conclude, “We must remove our pastor from office.”
The church board then meets in secret … compiles a laundry list of the pastor’s “offenses” … and concludes that the pastor must be evil.
And because the pastor has become demonic in their thinking, any method used to get rid of him is justified.
Even though the Bible specifies how to deal with these situations, Scripture is ignored.
Even though the church’s governing documents usually spell out the process for removal, that process isn’t followed, often because removal requires an unpredictable congregational vote.
Even though the law lays out parameters, it suddenly becomes irrelevant.
So one day, the pastor attends a regular board meeting, and they ask for his resignation. Or the board calls the pastor to a special meeting, and when he arrives, he’s told that he must resign or be fired.
And the pastor has no idea that his board has been plotting against him for weeks, if not months.
The carnage to follow may ruin the pastor’s career … split the church … divide friendships … and damage the church for years.
Is there a better way to handle pastoral termination?
I believe there is.
Every church needs a small team of fair-minded individuals whose charter is to teach the congregation the biblical way to resolve disputes … including disputes between the pastor and the board.
Let’s call it The Conflict Resolution Group (CRG) for lack of a better term. They could be appointed by the board or voted into office by the congregation.
The group could be as small as three or as large as seven. The CRG might be composed of a military officer … or a human resources director … or an attorney … people who must abide by certain operating procedures in their own professions.
The CRG would become their primary ministry in the church.
Those in the CRG would receive periodic training on church conflict prevention and resolution based on Scripture. They would help to mediate and resolve various disputes within the church.
And if the church board wanted to remove the pastor, the board would have to consult with the CRG first.
Why?
Because too many boards use deceptive and destructive methods to force their pastor to resign … methods the board doesn’t want the rest of the church to know about … including demands and threats.
But under this plan, the CRG would monitor the board to make sure that a pre-determined process was used that would minimize harm to all parties involved. A couple of CRG members might even attend board meetings, insuring that everyone be on their best behavior. And CRG members might meet with the pastor – whether he stays or leaves – to make sure that he felt he was treated fairly.
If the board followed a specified process in all their dealings with their pastor, everyone would know that the process was fair.
But if the board refused to follow the process … or they deviated from the process without the CRG’s approval … or they acted without informing the CRG … then the entire board would be expected to resign (as specified ahead of time) and the CRG would inform the congregation that the board tried to circumvent the pre-determined process for removing the pastor.
Let me say this loud and clear: some pastors need to leave their churches for a host of reasons. No pastor deserves a lifetime contract.
But it isn’t the pastor’s removal that results in massive carnage … it’s the deceptive and dangerous way that removal is carried out … because most church boards don’t want anyone looking over their shoulder when they move to eliminate their pastor.
You need to know: I detest bureaucracy. If this proposal is just another layer of red tape, then forget it!
But most pastors are accountable to their boards and issue verbal or written reports at every meeting.
Yet while most boards are accountable to their congregations in theory, it doesn’t work in practice – especially concerning pastoral termination – because boards rarely tell the church the real reason why their pastor resigned.
So if a board knows in advance that it will be accountable to a group that’s watching their every move – and if that board knows that any missteps can be reported to the congregation – they will have to handle matters the right way or leave office.
I don’t know whether or not my theory works. I hope it does.
But I do know this: the way that a typical church board removes a pastor in our day usually results in pain for hundreds if not thousands of people.
In fact, if the process I just described could have been implemented twenty years ago, tens of thousands of pastors might still be in church ministry today instead of sitting on the sidelines with broken hearts.
What do you think of my proposal?
Feel free to comment or send me an email at jim@restoringkingdombuilders.org
BRILLIANT!
LikeLike
Wow! High praise indeed. Thank you so much, Madam, whoever you are.
LikeLike
I agree that more bureaucracy is not the ideal solution. As you are well aware, church politics is meaner and nastier than civilian politics; more red tape exacerbates the conflict for all involved.
I think an amendment to church governing documents detailing conflict resolution amongst church leaders using Scripture (must be explicitly stated) as the guide would reduce animosity and hopefully bring restoration to those involved. Failure to follow the amendment would result in termination/resignation for the offending party; this must also be in the amendment.
I’ll grant you that this is another form of red tape that really shouldn’t be needed; Christians should always refer to the Bible to resolve any issue. Unfortunately, it seems more and more followers of Christ are acting more like Pharisees than Jesus.
LikeLike
Thanks so much for your ideas, Dave. I do think that when it comes to correcting or removing a pastor, it’s important for the board to know that someone is watching the process they’re using. The congregation doesn’t know what the board is doing … and won’t find out until much later, if at all … so someone needs to watch them. There are just too many boards who are abusing their pastors in our day. Some, if not most, pastors will speak up and speak out, but the board doesn’t hear them if they’re the subject of correction or removal.
The amendment idea is good, but who will call the board on it if they step out of line? They’ll just double down and cover for each other.
Feel free to continue the conversation!
Jim
LikeLike
I agree that a church governing board needs to be watched. With many church boards elected by the congregation, it is incumbent upon the board to disclose the minutes of meetings to the congregation at a minimum. As you are well aware though, most parishioners simply are not interested in what transpires during these meetings.
I was thinking of Matthew 18:15-17 as a foundational and explicitly stated part of the amendment. Reliable witnesses and solid documentation of wrongdoing must also be part of the amendment. If the board believes they have a strong case against their pastor and he refuses to step down, then the board needs to take it up with the congregation for the final determination. A weak case (lies and no documentation) brought before the congregation should result in the exoneration of the pastor with the resignation of the church board shortly thereafter.
Sadly, many pastors will resign before any case is brought to the congregation because they want to protect the church from any conflict. Church boards know this and use it to their advantage. Maybe your conflict resolution group is needed after all.
LikeLike
I agree that most people don’t care about what the church board discusses … until they’re unhappy with something. The board may choose to publish their minutes … or not … but if someone asks for them, the board needs to produce them. The only secrets in a church should involve people’s personal failings and weaknesses.
The board usually figures that since they have the pastor outnumbered, they can defeat him in any kind of conflict. From the pastor’s perspective, being outnumbered feels downright scary, because if the board chooses not to use Scripture or the bylaws or the law, who is going to make them do it?
So I think a CRG would be an asset in every church. Now I have to get enough Christians to agree!
Thanks again for writing, Dave.
Jim
LikeLike
Having a CRG is a great idea. I think that just having a group like that available to mediate all types of conflicts in the church would be great. I don’t think they should be appointed by the board, and they do need to have certain gifts, such as discernment and wisdom. Military leaders, personnel directors and elementary school principals all have good conflict resolution skills. In addition, I think it is an unfortunate reality that no member of the group can be a relative or close friend of any board member or their spouses, or of the pastor and his wife. Being neutral is key.
LikeLike
Thanks for your affirmation, Ce Ce. When I was a pastor, sometimes there were disputes between members – I distinctly remember one over money – and one party kept pressing me to go and talk to the person who cheated him and get his money back. I didn’t feel that was my place – and I didn’t want to bring it to the board – but if we had a CRG in the church, they could handle that situation, taking the burden off the pastor, staff, and board.
I supposed having a CRG is like having insurance. It’s there if you need it. Since most churches pay money for insurance, what’s wrong with having a little extra?
Thanks for weighing in with articulate comments, as always!
Jim
LikeLike
I agree that churches need to have a CRG to help all parties stick to the Word. It is said that a person who feels offended does not think right. So a neutral group can help them see things right.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment, Brother Elijah! Yes, a CRG would be a good thing.
Happy Easter, my friend!
Jim
LikeLike
Happy Easter too Man of God. God bless you and yours.
LikeLike
Thank you, Elijah. Happy Easter to you, my friend! Hope you are doing well.
Jim
LikeLike