Pastor Ken had just discovered something that he didn’t want to know: most of the members of Joy Church’s governing board were giving little or nothing to the ministry.
And that information not only broke Ken’s heart … it made him angry.
It all started one July day when Amy, the church’s office manager, was supposed to mail out the giving records of every person in the church for the first six months of the year. The records were supposed to be in the mail by Friday so that churchgoers would have them in their possession by the end of the month.
But it was now Thursday, and Amy called Pastor Ken to say that she was out sick with a fever and probably wouldn’t be in on Friday, either. Wanting to run an efficient church, Ken thought for a moment and asked his good friend Steve, a trusted staff member, if he would step in and put the giving statements in the mail by late that afternoon.
Ken could have dropped everything and mailed the statements himself, but two things stopped him: first, he needed to devote the rest of the day to preparing his sermon for Sunday, and second, he had always promised himself – and others – that he would never know who gave how much to the church.
During the course of that Thursday, Ken poked his head into the office several times and asked Steve how things were going. Each time, Steve responded, “Pastor, folding the statements and putting them into envelopes is going fine, but sometimes I can’t help but notice how much people are giving to the ministry here, and it’s extremely disheartening. Many of the leaders, who have great jobs, are giving next to nothing, while some with little income seem to be giving much more generously.”
Although he didn’t want to go there, Steve’s statement piqued Ken’s curiosity.
Years before, in another church, Ken wanted to know about the giving patterns of the church’s regular attendees, so he asked the financial secretary to make a list for him. Down the first column, Ken asked that each giving unit in the church be assigned a number so he wouldn’t know their names. Then he asked for 12 more columns: one for each month of the year, accompanied by how much money each unit gave every month.
Ken still shudders when he recalls the giving patterns in that church family. He noticed that many families gave nothing during January – presumably because they were paying off their credit cards after Christmas – and that others gave virtually nothing during June, July, and August – most likely because they were financing their summer vacations with at least some of their regular giving.
When Ken received that information, he remembered a story a pastor friend had told him years before. Ken had been asked to be a guest speaker at a church, and before he went, his pastor friend told him, “You’re visiting a church where the pastor discovered that 35 members were giving a total of $50.00 per week to that ministry! The pastor exposed those non-givers and they were all voted out of membership.”
While Ken thought that approach was going too far, he thought to himself, “This is why I’ve never wanted to know how much money people give to the ministry. I’m human, and I’m afraid it would impact the way I view them.”
Ken tried to put his disappointment aside that Saturday, and he preached his heart out the following day, although many people were gone on vacation.
But after the second service, as Ken was preparing to go home, the financial secretary walked up to him, handed him a sealed envelope, and told him, “You need to see this.”
Ken waited until he got in his car before he opened the envelope. To his surprise, he had been handed the giving records of every board member and staff member for the first half of the year … and what he saw tore him up inside.
On the one hand, the staff members were giving very generously. In fact, when Ken got home, he did the math, and the staff were outgiving the board by a three-to-one ratio.
But of the nine board members, six were giving virtually nothing to the church. Out of those six, three had each given a total of $150 for those first six months … almost as if their donations had been coordinated … and one was giving just $20 per week. Three others were giving regularly … one generously … but Ken was obsessed with those six non-givers.
The next day was Monday, and Ken took an early and expanded lunch. He needed time to think. Now that he knew how little the board members were giving, what did it all mean?
Ken came to four conclusions:
First, the non-givers were not spiritual individuals.
Didn’t Paul tell Timothy in 1 Timothy 3:3 that an overseer should not be “a lover of money?” Didn’t Peter write in 1 Peter 5:2 that a church elder/leader should not be “greedy for money?”
Ken knew there was a direct correlation between spirituality and giving … that those who give to God are putting Him first, and must trust Him to take care of their needs … and that those who don’t give are often confessing that money means more to them than God. Didn’t Jesus say we can’t serve two masters?
Ken believed strongly that spiritual leaders … including pastors, staff, and official board members … need to be examples rather than exceptions.
This was true for church attendance … serving in ministries … and giving financially.
Once or twice every year, Ken preached on biblical giving, and when he did, he told his congregation that he and his wife had tithed for years, and if anyone wanted proof, they could come up to him after the service and he would show them his checkbook.
Ken assumed that when he did that, the staff and board members could stand right there with him and do the same thing … but now he knew that most of the board members couldn’t … not because they didn’t make enough money, but because they weren’t spiritual enough.
And yet, by virtue of their position on the board, everyone assumed they were.
Second, the non-givers were not behind the church’s mission or Ken’s ministry.
In his mind, Ken wasn’t giving to keep the doors of his church open. He was giving to a mission, not an institution.
But by the same token, those non-giving board members were silently saying, “We do not stand behind our mission or our pastor.”
Ken remembered one email he received from the person who volunteered to head up the refreshment ministry. This person told Ken that a board member had approached her the previous Sunday and said, “The budget for refreshments is gone for the year, so there’s no more money for food between services.”
This information startled Ken because the board had never made such a decision … and because he knew the person serving refreshments was funding the ministry entirely from her own pocket.
To Ken, that refreshment ministry was vital, because guests would stay after the service … enjoy a treat … talk with Ken or other staff members … and be invited to return. Much of the church’s outreach was facilitated by those conversations around the refreshment tables.
Ken believed that money was just a tool to fulfill the church’s mission, but he was now discovering that for most board members, money assumed a far greater importance.
Third, those stingy board members were impacting the giving of others … directly or indirectly.
Ken and his wife had determined early in their ministry that they would tithe ten percent of their income … on the gross, not the net … because they wanted God to bless the gross, not just the net. And although they had gone through many hard times, the Lord had been faithful, so they never stopped giving.
Ken and his wife were giving around 12% of their income … well over a thousand dollars … on a monthly basis. He assumed that the nine board members were right there with him … but now he knew that most of them weren’t.
The church was going through a hard time financially, and Ken wondered why. But now he knew that if all the board members gave generously, the shortfall would be wiped out in no time.
Years before, Ken had learned that “like produces like” … that the lifestyle patterns of church leaders eventually rub off on much of the congregation.
So even though the non-giving board members assumed that no one knew what they gave to the ministry, their stingy stances were bound to impact the congregation through their attitudes, conversations and decisions.
Finally, Ken now understood why the board wanted to cut back on spending rather than expand the income base.
Ken’s bent was to “grow the ministry.” He believed that when the church was trusting God and taking risks, people would be attracted to the church, and they would eventually become givers.
For most of that year, the board’s bent was to “cut the budget.” They didn’t even consider growing more givers. They just wanted to keep trimming the spending.
Ken knew that the non-givers … who outnumbered the givers two to one … would always vote to cut back spending because they didn’t want to increase their giving to the church.
If they were all tithing, that would have been one thing … but only one-third of them were even in the ballpark. In fact, what Ken was giving to the ministry amounted to more than what any seven members combined were giving.
So most of the board members wanted to shrink spending … and cut the budget … so they could maintain their own meager giving patterns.
During that time, Ken endured long board meetings where the board’s mindset was, “Don’t spend money … don’t try anything new … don’t take risks.”
Ken couldn’t live like that. He knew that mindset would send the church into maintenance mode, and the church would begin a death spiral.
While sitting at a budget planning meeting several months later, Ken listened to various board members and their gloomy financial scenarios, and it began to dawn on him.
The board was no longer following his leadership.
Ken also wondered if some or all of the non-givers weren’t contributing so they could squeeze him out as pastor by claiming that his ministry wasn’t producing enough income.
Suddenly, Ken realized that the information he had providentially acquired was not only a sign that the board wasn’t behind the mission, but that his ministry at Joy Church was in jeopardy.
And Ken was right. The following month, the board covertly initiated a plan to push out their pastor … and let the biggest non-giver become their leader.
How do you interpret what happened to Pastor Ken?
Restoring Kingdom Builders 
Accountable Pastors, Unaccountable Boards
Posted in Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with Church Staff, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged church board accountability, pastor accountability, pastor-board conflict, pastoral termination on May 26, 2016| Leave a Comment »
A pastor friend recently send me his thoughts after an article I wrote on pastor-board conflict:
“I understand that the pastor has to have some level of accountability and I agree that this needs to be in place however; where is the level of accountability for the board??!!! Why does the board get such freedom to govern as they see fit, and the pastor bend at their beckoning call? When I first came into ministry 14 years ago, I was an idealist and wanted to touch lives, help as many people as I could, and set the world on fire for Jesus. I still have fire for Jesus, but my flame for what happens behind the scenes in churches has grown very dim. What I have discovered in my pastoral career is pastors who go into a pastorate full of desire and passion, many times must go through a board to get permission to do things in ministry. The pastor may be the public figure, but the board runs the church with little to no accountability!!”
I’ve thought long and hard about this issue since my friend sent me his comments. Here are five thoughts on this issue:
First, every church leader needs to be accountable to someone outside his/her group.
This means that:
*a ministry team leader should be accountable to a pastor … a staff member … or a board member.
*a staff member should be accountable to a higher-ranking staffer or the lead pastor.
*the pastor should report to someone … presumably the official board. (If you want a miniscule church or a church split, make the pastor directly accountable to the congregation.)
*the board should account to another person/group as well, possibly depending upon who selected the board members.
When Paul laid out the qualifications for overseers/elders in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, he meant for Timothy and Titus to select those leaders.
In our day, that’s probably the equivalent of the lead pastor choosing the board members, which seems awkward because then he’s choosing his own supervisors!
As pastor, I always had veto power over board candidates, and used it often, though I probably let a few slip through the cracks that I shouldn’t have.
But churches ruled by congregational government usually vote on or verify the board members in an annual election. It’s almost always a rubber stamp because I’ve never heard of any board candidate being voted down. Most people simply don’t know enough about the leaders who are nominated to reject them … a flaw in our systems.
Second, this “accountability system” doesn’t work in actual practice for official boards.
I served in eight churches over a 36-year period in churches that espoused congregational government.
*The pastor was always accountable to the official board.
In my case, I submitted a written report to the board at every monthly meeting for years and years. I knew that I was accountable to the board for all that I said and did. If a board member had an issue with me, they knew they could speak with me directly or ask me a question in the presence of the other board members. Because I kept the board current on my decisions and activities, I never had major problems with any boards until my last year in church ministry.
*The staff were always accountable to the lead pastor or the associate.
When I had just one or two staff members, they were always accountable directly to me as pastor. When I had as many as ten staff members, most were still accountable directly to me, although I later asked several staffers to report to the associate pastor … a mistake on my part.
*The board was accountable to the congregation on paper … but rarely if ever reported anything to the church body as a whole … which gradually makes them feel as if they’re accountable to no one but themselves.
Third, the lack of board accountability is likely a major reason why so many pastors are forced out of office in our congregations today.
Think about this: who should the official board in a church account to?
Possible answers:
*Some might say, “The board is directly accountable to God Himself.”
But then why can’t the pastor be directly accountable to God as well? As Pastor Chuck Smith from Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa used to ask pastors, “Who do you work for … the Lord or the board?”
But knowing human nature, most Christian leaders would say, “Since pastors occasionally go off track, they require immediate human accountability as well as ultimate divine accountability.”
If pastors require some level of human accountability, shouldn’t board members as well?
*Some might say, “Individual board members should be accountable to each other or to the board as a whole.”
But then why can’t staff members be accountable to each other rather than the pastor? And why can’t the youth pastor account to other staff members rather than the lead pastor?
This might work at first, but over time … if board members are only accountable to themselves … they’ll go off the rails … no matter how “spiritual” they are.
All too many do.
*Some might say, “The official board should account to the congregation as a whole.”
And I agree.
And yet … this is either done rarely or poorly in churches with congregational government.
Why is this the case?
In most of my ministries, I as pastor became the official spokesperson for the board in public. So when the board made a decision behind closed doors, I either volunteered or was assigned the duty of sharing that decision with our church family.
Sometimes I’d do that during the announcements on Sunday morning … or through an all-church email or letter … or through a handout in the Sunday bulletin.
Much of the time, I was more articulate than the chairman in public … and I had authority and credibility than most board members lacked.
But by always reporting board decisions to the church as a whole, I made a huge mistake … one that most pastors make:
My actions did not communicate to the congregation that the official board was accountable to the church as a whole.
Let’s say that the board decided that all greeters and ushers had to wear yellow shirts every Sunday, and that they wanted me as pastor to announce that decision during the next worship service.
Even if I said, “If you have any questions or comments about this decision, please contact one of our board members,” many people would be more likely to approach me because I’m the one who made the announcement.
It’s like I had an unspoken pact with the board: “You decide … I’ll announce.”
But in my mind, that seemingly insignificant pattern sends a strong message: the church board is not obligated to report their decisions to the congregation.
And that’s the problem, isn’t it?
Fourth, the presumption is that since there is only one lead pastor along with multiple board members, there’s a check-and-balance system already built into board proceedings.
But I would strongly dispute this argument because without their pastor, church boards sometimes make horrendous decisions.
Ten years ago, I took a sabbatical for six weeks, and spent an entire month in Europe.
While I was gone, something unexpected happened at church, and two staff members went to the church board with a proposal that I would not have approved.
I wasn’t around to consult, so the board made a decision … the wrong one, in my view … and when I returned home, I had to try and undo the damage that was created … but my intervention-after-the-fact ultimately made things worse … even though I handled the situation as well as possible.
I’m not saying that church boards can’t make good decisions without their pastor, but they will always make better decisions with him than without him.
But when the board tries to make decisions about their pastor in secret … and without his wisdom and experience … their decisions may be based on business experience or raw emotion (think hatred or revenge) rather than Scripture or the church’s governing documents.
For that reason … and I’m just guessing here … I’d put it this way:
*When the pastor and board make decisions together, they have a 90% success rate.
*When the board makes decisions without their pastor, they have less than a 50% success rate.
Add to that last statement a couple of spiritually immature members … a degree of high anxiety … pressure from influential or wealthy churchgoers … and the feeling of, “If we get rid of the pastor, we’re in charge of the church now!” … and you can see how many church boards can slip into “termination thinking” without knowing the pitfalls ahead.
Finally, there are three possible solutions to the issue of board accountability:
*The board needs to make every decision in conjunction with their pastor.
Not the associate pastor … not a former pastor … not another church’s pastor … but their own pastor.
But if their pastor is guilty of a major offense, then it’s appropriate for them to meet without the pastor and consult outside Christian leaders – at least five, in my view – so the board doesn’t cherry pick someone they know will agree with them.
There is safety in multiple counselors.
*The board is accountable to a Conflict Resolution Group (call them the CRG) for the way they choose to handle conflict … especially anything involving the lead pastor.
I’ve made the case for this in articles over the past few weeks, but the CRG should serve as a watchdog concerning the process that the board uses whenever they engage in conflict management with the pastor, staff, or congregation.
*The board needs to report as many decisions as possible to the congregation as a whole.
In many churches, this is done on an annual basis through a verbal or written report, but this simply isn’t adequate.
If the pastor has to account to the board at every meeting – usually monthly – then why does the board only have to account to the congregation once a year? Doesn’t that disparity lend itself to abuse?
If board members don’t interact with churchgoers regularly, they will be woefully out of touch, and in effect, minimize their chances of making God-blessed decisions.
Instead, the board should publish edited copies of their agenda before a meeting … and their minutes (edited) after a meeting … to anyone and everyone who wants a copy. (Some boards post this information on a bulletin board, but I think it’s better nowadays to send the information via email to those who request it.)
Board members also need to publish their email addresses and let people know that they will read and respond to churchgoer concerns promptly.
The very act of being accountable on a monthly basis will keep board members on their ecclesiastical toes … help take stress off the pastor … and make for a more harmonious and productive church.
And if the board ever has to dismiss the pastor, they will already have a delivery system in place for reporting to the congregation.
There is nothing worse than a board never reporting to the congregation for a year or more … and then trying to establish accountability when they announce that the pastor has left the church.
This is one reason why all hell breaks loose after a pastor leaves: the board doesn’t have a track record of credibility with the congregation.
And what many, many boards do … sad to say … is to lie about the pastor … and destroy his reputation … as a way of covering up how badly they handled the conflict.
I’d love for what I’ve written to be the beginning of an honest conversation with my readers.
What works and doesn’t work for you in what I’ve written?
Share this:
Read Full Post »