Pastor Paul was in great pain.
Paul had been the pastor of a medium-sized congregation for four years, and as far as he could tell, things were going great.
After years of decline, attendance had turned around. Giving was up. There were plans to buy additional land and construct a new building.
It was evident that people felt great about their church.
Most people.
But a handful weren’t happy. They no longer had access to the pastor … weren’t involved in making important decisions … and disagreed with the pastor’s direction for the church.
So eight people began meeting in secret. They pooled their complaints and pledged to return the church to its pre-Paul state.
But to do that, they first had to bounce Pastor Paul.
And to get rid of him, they had to fight dirty.
They made lists of his flaws … wrote down “questionable” expressions in his sermons … and pulled others into their web.
They even recruited a staff member and two board members to their cause.
Before long, that group of eight had swelled to twenty-three … about five percent of the entire congregation.
When the “charges” going around finally reached Pastor Paul, he panicked. He began having anxiety attacks … started isolating himself from people … and began breaking down emotionally.
Sensing their strategy was working, the pastor’s critics turned up the heat.
The pastor started preaching less assertively. He was guarded around members, not knowing who was for or against him.
When his wife began folding under the strain, Pastor Paul negotiated a severance package with the board and quietly left.
Now here’s a question I’d like you to answer:
Should the church board … or members of the church staff … or the local denominational executive … tell the congregation the real reason why the pastor resigned?
The tendency in evangelical churches is to do the following:
*The board issues itself a “gag order” and refuses to discuss the situation inside the church.
*The board puts the staff under the same “gag order” … even threatening their jobs if they say what they know.
*The leader of the denominational district responds to inquiries by using stock phrases like “some people disagreed with the pastor’s direction” or “this problem goes back many years” or “there were philosophical differences” … phrases designed to make people stop asking questions.
*The pastor is given a severance package in exchange for not saying anything about why he left.
*An interim pastor comes to the church and says, “Let’s forget the past and focus on the future.”
But do these actions truly bring healing to the former pastor … church board … staff members … and congregation?
In the meantime, do we as followers of Jesus ever stop to ask ourselves, “Is this really the healthiest way to handle matters?”
In Dennis Maynard’s book Healing for Pastors & People Following a Sheep Attack, the former pastor, author, and church consultant writes the following:
“The healing moment for the wounded members of the congregation will come when the real reason for the pastor’s leaving is brought into the light. If the former pastor’s leaving was the consequence of a sheep attack then the interim period must be used to bring that out of the shadows and into the open. It is not a secret! The denominational executive and the remaining lay leaders may try to pretend so. The antagonists will put their spin on it. Most every member of the congregation already knows otherwise.”
I almost cried when I read those words. Finally, a prominent Christian leader believes that only the truth will really set a church free!
Maynard says that if this step isn’t taken, then those who forced out the pastor will continue to blame him for everything. But “the spin of the antagonists only deepens the anger in the congregation. Resentment will build among those members that desperately want the truth to be brought into the open. The end result is that their alienation from the parish is made complete…. The real dysfunction that is common knowledge in the congregation … is that the pastor was targeted, bullied and attacked.”
After a pastor is forced to leave a church, some people … perhaps many … will eventually leave.
You can’t hold onto everybody.
If church leaders fail to tell the truth, they’ll lose the good people.
If they do tell the truth, they’ll probably lose the antagonists and their friends.
Seems like a no-brainer, doesn’t it?
So why not the tell the truth?
Maynard continues:
“Pretending that the systemic dysfunction does not exist will not correct it. It must be named and confronted. I also contend that openly naming and discussing what happened is a critical component in the healing process. The hurting hearts of the injured members of the congregation need it. To do otherwise will only cause many faithful lay people wounded by the experience to leave. Far too many of them will permanently walk away from the Church sad, angry and disgusted. Some will stay but become passive to inactive members. Their bitterness toward the denominational authorities and the antagonists will accelerate. Others will seek a new congregation but will choose to become uninvolved. Many will never return to their former ministries of leadership in any parish.”
Dennis Maynard is a leader in the Episcopal Church, which is considered to be a mainline denomination. I believe that what he writes is biblical and true to reality, even though it may not be politically correct among evangelical leaders who seem to prefer expediency to honesty.
When a group of bullies forces a pastor to resign, why won’t anybody talk about what happened openly?
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
It seems to me that telling the truth would be the only way to heal a congregation so they can move forward. The first step though has to be admitting the truth. I think this might be very hard for some people to do. For example, when my pastor husband and I left the church, an elder we (and the congregation) very much respected who had been absent for a month due to illness, came and told me that he saw that this attack by a few was going on and he was coming back and was going to put a stop to it. Unfortunately, things moved along very fast after that, and my husband resigned. However, during that brief time, he never brought that problem of the small group of attackers up and to my knowledge it was never mentioned after we left. I can see where an interim pastor could be of great help in working through these issues with the congregation. If they are open to examining what happened, they might be better able to use Biblical principles in handling this kind of attack of Satan.
LikeLike
Sue, the truth is … and I don’t like saying this … that many, if not most, interims do one of two things:
First, blame the previous pastor’s departure solely on the pastor. This is because that pastor now lacks any forum to defend himself. An interim can engage in a whispering campaign against the previous pastor … destroy his reputation inside the congregation … and the previous pastor may have no way of knowing what’s being said against him. And even if he finds out, what can he do?
Some interims are skilled at making the previous pastor look bad and making themselves look good by contrast. To me, this is unethical and against the gospel, but it happens all the time.
*Ignore what happened completely and tell the congregation, “Let’s forget the past and look toward the future.” The interim basically says, “I wasn’t here. I don’t know what happened. It’s no use blaming anybody, so let’s all forget about it and focus on healing and doing things for the Lord.”
But this kind of attitude denies reality … denies people’s pain … and tries to preserve the institution of the church rather than bring healing to the people of the church.
It’s actually rare for a congregation to be told that the pastor was attacked and abused because the attackers and abusers are most likely still inside the church, along with their friends and family, and nobody wants to rile them up.
But I don’t see how the Church of Jesus Christ can ever expose and overcome the problem of forced termination unless we admit the problem inside our churches and discipline those who acted unbiblically. But because most churches value unity over truth, this hardly ever occurs. I’ll be writing more on this topic. Thanks for interacting!
Jim
LikeLike
Thanks Jim for always telling the truth and standing for what is right!
LikeLike
And Kim, thanks for always standing beside me and cheering me on when I do try and tell the truth!
Jim
LikeLike
As a career interim, I feel compelled to respond to the above statement, that “many, if not most interims do . . .” OK, I admit that SOME interims probably do or have done what is stated. But this has not been the case in the six interim churches I have served, nor has it been how the several interim clergy I have mentored have behaved. I sense a shift here from what is (IMHO appropriately) named as blaming the departed pastor to “blaming the interim” for not dealing directly with the heritage of a sheep attack. Neither approach addresses the problem. Neither approach heals.
LikeLike
Maureen, Thanks for your comment. I am glad that you don’t blame the former pastors for everything, and that you don’t advocate this approach with those you mentor. But I hear too many stories of this happening to think that it’s relatively rare. In my single interim pastorate, I refused to blame the former pastor for anything, even though some people wanted me to take their side with the outstanding issues they had with him.
I’m not advocating blaming the previous pastor, the interim, or anyone else. When there’s a major conflict in a church, there’s usually enough blame to go around. But the trend I see … the trend I’m trying to focus light on … is that too many interims become seduced by members of the faction responsible for forcing out the pastor, eventually taking their side on matters. I know firsthand how this works.
After a highly successful ministry, a small group in my last church wanted to get rid of me. I called in a consultant, who witnessed the machinations of the faction in two public meetings, and advised me to leave. A 9-person investigative team from inside the church examined the charges the small group were making and exonerated me publicly two weeks after I left. Then the new interim came to the church, blamed me for everything, and did his best to destroy my reputation. I began asking myself, “How often does this happen in other situations?” I don’t have statistical proof for this … seems to me it would be hard to come by … but I’m hearing the same pattern repeated over and over from people who contact me. Wise interims like you may not be doing this, but it’s done all too often, and doesn’t promote healing.
In my situation, because the interim would not address the plot to get rid of me, many of the church’s best people eventually left, even though I had urged everyone to stay. And when the new pastor came, members of the faction became prominent church leaders, causing even more solid people to leave. The church of Jesus needs many more interims with integrity who can’t be seduced or flattered, and I’m glad you’re among that number. Please keep it up!
Jim
LikeLike
So, as a relative newcomer to Jesus, I have found it quite amazing that Christians choose to do the enemy’s work. I read blame after blame in this material. Really? Doesn’t anyone else realize it’s Satan who accuses. He does a good enough job without believers helping him.
The Holy Trinity unites believers. The enemy tries (and far to often succeeds) to divide us.
“Politically correct…” is the world’s way of avoiding the truth.
God bless you Jim for supporting the truth, shared in perfect unity with grace. In Christ, the two are inseparable.
THE prominent Christian leader believes that only the truth will really set anyone free. His name is Jesus. If we choose not to love in Jesus, united IN Jesus, we look just like the rest of the world. Lost, chained to the approval of the world, blind, and badly wounded & broken. In that condition, we’ll succeed in loving no one.
Looking forward to seeing a lot less blaming, and waaay more unity, and loving, in Jesus. Thanking God for bringing the Light to shine on the dire need for truth.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comments, Ty. I agree with you 100%. What’s sad is this: Christians ignore the clear New Testament commands that specify how to handle antagonists in churches, and also ignore the New Testament’s clear teaching on how to handle disagreements and disputes. People just act out emotionally … illogically … and unbiblically … and rarely does anybody say or do anything about it.
Jim
LikeLike