Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Church Conflict’ Category

Outgrowing Church? Part 2

Posted in Church Conflict, Current Church Issues, Please Comment! on July 27, 2011| 7 Comments »

When I was at Fuller Seminary a few years ago, I sat under a well-known professor who is also a prolific author.  My guess is that he was in his late sixties when I took the class.

This Christian leader did not attend a traditional church, even though he’s been identified with a specific denomination nearly his whole life.

Instead, he attended a house church of about 35 people on Sunday evenings.

When I first heard him mention this, I thought he was being a bit rebellious.  Weren’t there scores of already-existing churches within a few minutes’ drive of his home?  Couldn’t they benefit from his worldwide teaching ministry?

At the time, I was probably at the apex of my own pastoral ministry.  In fact, our church was ready to start construction on a new worship center.

Fast forward ahead a few years and matters are very different.

In my last article, I wondered if my wife and I have outgrown the local church.  I certainly hope not.  We need to continue to grow spiritually.  We need to hear the Word of God preached.  We need to use our spiritual gifts.  We need to be a part of something bigger than ourselves.

As Joanna Hogg of the Irish group Iona sings in their song “Dancing on the Wall”: “I am part of something that is going to change things for the better.”

We’ll always be a part of the kingdom of God.  And we’ll always be members of the Church Universal.  But what about the local church?

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems that my wife and I have entered that season in our lives when some Christians decide to become part-time churchgoers rather than full-time ones.

Let me share two more concerns about the churches I’ve been visiting (the first three were presented in my last post):

Fourth, there are fewer invitations to receive Christ.  I grew up in churches where the pastor gave an altar call at every service.  He invited unbelievers to receive Christ by asking them to leave their seat and walk to the front of the worship center.  Too many pastors back then used manipulative tactics to force people to “walk the aisle” and implied they couldn’t be saved unless they did.  Although this practice is never mentioned in the New Testament, it was a third sacrament in many churches until baby boomers became pastors.  I was so alarmed at what I saw in some churches that I wrote my thesis in seminary on this practice.

But now the pendulum seems to have swung in the other direction.  I honestly cannot remember the last time I was in a church service and a pastor invited unbelievers to pray and receive Christ.

In the church we’ve been attending, many people are being converted, and although we haven’t gone to the membership class, my guess is that that’s the place where people are being won to Christ.

But what about those who choose not to attend the class?

Pastors have differing views on this issue.  A decreasing number of pastors invite unbelievers to receive Christ after every message.  Some rarely if ever do.  In my case, I did so if (a) the passage called for it, or (b) the Holy Spirit prompted me to do so.

Decades after my own conversion, I’m still thrilled when I hear the gospel preached in a biblical and relevant way.  But I’m hearing it preached less and less.

What have you been noticing along this line?

Finally, too many churches act like they constitute the kingdom of God.  Six months after arriving in the Valley of the Sun (it’s only 104 degrees here today), I visited with a denominational executive.  I asked him if there was any kind of annual convention or larger meeting of Christians in the greater Phoenix area, and he told me he didn’t know of any.  (When I was a pastor in Silicon Valley, for example, the National Association of Evangelicals sponsored a monthly luncheon for pastors.)  This leader told me that Phoenix has a Wild West mentality about it and that it tends to be “every man for himself” here.

And maybe “every church for itself” as well.

I’m a local Christian but a global Christian, too.  I like knowing that there are churches and Christians in Western Europe and Eastern Africa as well as in California and Texas.

But it seems to me that more and more church leaders aren’t promoting much about Jesus’ worldwide kingdom outside the four walls of their own buildings.  In the process, it’s easy for a church to give off the impression that “we are the kingdom of God” rather than “we are just a part of the kingdom of God.”

There are exceptions to this, of course, but this is the trend I’ve been seeing.

My favorite verse about the church is Ephesians 5:25 where Paul tells us that “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her …”  If Jesus loves the church, then I need to love her as well.  And if Jesus gave His life for His people, I need to do the same.

But Paul is talking in context about the Church Universal, not necessarily a local church.

I agree with Bill Hybels that “the Church is the hope of the world.”

But how does that play out in the 21st century?  Must we all attend services in a church building in our community?  If not, is a house church a legitimate biblical expression of the church in our culture?

And what if we choose not to participate in a local church at all?  (Yes, I know about Hebrews 10:24-25!)

I’m not trying to be a heretic, but I am trying to be provocative.

What do you think about the future of the local church where you live?

Read Full Post »

Outgrowing Church?

Posted in Church Conflict, Current Church Issues, Please Comment! on July 25, 2011| 14 Comments »

When I was a young man in my twenties and thirties, I met a fair number of professing Christians who regularly missed worship services – either at our church or at the one they attended.  They seemed to have a cavalier attitude about being absent, an attitude that I as a pastor could not relate to.

After all, church was my life.

While I knew that attending church services could not gain salvation for anyone, I believed that it was essential for spiritual growth – and I still do.

But lately, I’ve been wondering.

I’ve attended services at about 25 different churches over the past 18 months, so my observations aren’t based upon going to a mere handful.  I’ve been to small, medium-sized, and large churches, as well as a few mega-churches.

Since growing, cutting-edge churches tend to follow trends, there’s a lot of sameness in our churches today, even though evangelical churches don’t use a common liturgy.

But attending worship is starting to become less meaningful for me, and I’m wondering if I’m all alone on this one.

Let me make some observations about my experiences:

First, the music has been uniformly good.  Most of the churches I’ve attended have bands, and they know what they’re doing.  Some play soft, others play loud.  They all play contemporary praise music, and most mix in a hymn or two.  And I don’t think any band has played longer than 15 minutes, or 4 songs.  In addition, the state of musicianship in our churches has vastly improved over the past decade.

However … too many of the lyrics contain Christian cliches.  What if we declared a moratorium on using words like “praise” and “worship” and “bow” and “adore” and insisted that Christian songwriters quit cranking out songs like they were working for Tin Pan Alley?

Back in the early 1970s, Lovesong, the original Christian rock group, put these lyrics on its pioneer album:

Sing unto the heavens with a brand new song

The one that we’ve been hearing’s been a hit too long

The lyrics sound confused as if they don’t belong

So sing unto the Lord and sing with feeling

I’m starting to get to the point where I’m content to miss the first few minutes of the worship time, and I’ve never felt that way before.  Is it just me, or is there an increasing sameness about worship music today?

Second, the prayers are so short they’re practically meaningless.  In my humble opinion, they sound perfunctory.  To quote Keith Green out of context, “no one hurts, no one aches, no one even sheds one tear.”  I’m non-charismatic in my approach to worship, but the prayers I’ve been hearing lately have one thing in common: let’s get through this prayer quickly so we can say we prayed … and move on to the good stuff.

But in the process, we don’t really touch heaven, and heaven doesn’t really touch us.

Many pastors operate by the philosophy, “When in doubt, pray.”  At one church my wife and I attended recently, the pastor prayed six or seven times during the service – and it seemed a bit much.  But I’m longing for one meaningful time of prayer during the service so we can know we touched the face of God.

Sometimes, the pastor will offer that prayer – and I love to hear a pastor’s heart poured out for his congregation.  Other times, someone else might encourage people to pray silently right where they’re seated.

But let’s do some planning so that prayers aren’t just whizzing by us during a service.

We can pray a little longer, a little more intensely, and much, much better.

Amen?

Third, I long to hear a pastor teach from one passage of Scripture.  I’ve heard messages from Genesis 1, Exodus 1, Joshua 4, Nehemiah 13, Song of Solomon, Luke 22, John 10, Acts 1, and Acts 28 (among other passages) – but I’ve mostly heard topical messages.  (And I can’t recall one message from any of the epistles.)  While I like topical messages – and usually preached a high percentage of them myself – I’m concerned about the lack of biblical ignorance among Christians today.

We don’t seem to know our Bibles anymore.

Let me use the church we’ve been attending as an example.  The pastor does very little exposition of Scripture.  Instead, he preaches topically, referring to and quoting key verses.  There’s a place for that, and he does a great job.  But if you want to study a biblical passage or book, where in the church can you do that anymore?

Can you do it in small groups?  The groups at our church are designed around discussing the pastor’s message from the week before.

Can you do it in Bible classes?  The only Bible classes that exist are unadvertised.

The church encourages us to read our Bibles through in a year – a very good thing to do – but where in the church can people learn how to interpret and study Scripture for themselves?

Instead, it’s done for us by a professional.

Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems as if Protestant churches are starting to go Roman Catholic: only the priest is qualified to interpret the Bible.

What do you think about what I’ve shared?

I’ll share my final few observations next time.

Read Full Post »

Pastors and Power

Posted in Church Conflict, Conflict with the Pastor, Please Comment!, tagged , , , , on July 22, 2011| 4 Comments »

How much power should a pastor have in a church?

Should a pastor have absolute power to make decisions?  Or should he implement change only after consulting with other leaders?

I once met with a well-known pastor in the San Jose area.  He had a commanding presence and seemed like someone who knew how to wield power firmly.  He told me that he had two boards in his church.  One kept telling him, “Go, go, go!”  The other one kept saying, “Slow, slow, slow!”

Over my years as a pastor, some people told me that I needed to exercise more power than I did, while others labeled me a dictator who didn’t let others make decisions.  I suppose most pastors struggle with the proper balance here.

Let me share with you five principles about how pastors should wield power in a church:

First, a pastor’s authority originates from God.  A pastor does not gain power through ordination, or by being a seminary graduate, or by attending a conference at Saddleback or Willow Creek.  No, a pastor’s authority comes directly from the Holy Trinity.  The Father, Son, and Spirit call specific individuals to pastoral ministry.

Before ascending to heaven, Jesus told His disciples that even His own authority was derived from His Father: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18).

And Paul told the elders/pastors of the church at Ephesus that “the Holy Spirit has made you overseers” (Acts 20:28).

Many – if not most – of the men who pastor a Calvary Chapel are taught “The Moses Principle” of leadership.  God spoke directly to Moses, and Moses told the people what God said.  Pastor Chuck Smith is fond of asking pastors if they work for the Lord or for the board.

Since God calls people to be pastors, those pastors always need to be accountable to Him for the way they exercise authority.  While the Godhead truly possesses all authority for all time, a pastor’s authority is both partial and temporary.  Therefore, it needs to be stewarded wisely.

Second, pastors are to advance the kingdom of God.  They are to say with Jesus, “Thy kingdom come,” not “my kingdom come.”  It is the job of a pastor to make Jesus look good, not make himself look good.

Pastors should be content to have people talk about Jesus rather than themselves.  It is unworthy of a pastor to aim to make a lot of money, or to become famous, or to be unnecessarily admired, or to have his eye on a larger church.

I Peter 5:6 is written in the context of church leadership and says, “Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.”  A humble pastor knows that he is accountable to God and that the Lord will reward him in His own time and way.

In other words, it’s important for a pastor’s motives to be pure – and a true desire to build God’s kingdom usually results in more pastoral power, not less.

Third, a pastor earns power as he serves people.  A pastor cannot stay in his church office all day and earn power by thinking up new projects.  He earns power by touching the lives of hurting people.

In my second pastorate, there was a couple that didn’t seem to like me.  The husband was standoffish and the wife could be caustic at times.  While they weren’t overtly antagonistic toward me, I didn’t really know how to win them over.

Three years into my tenure, the wife’s mother died.  As I ministered to the family in their time of grief, I could sense that things were changing.  Before long, this couple was one of my best supporters – but it took time.

Isn’t this what Jesus said in Matthew 20:26-28?  “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

If anyone deserved to exercise authority over people, it was Jesus.  He had the ability to force people to do things against their will – but He identified and met their needs instead.  He never bulldozed anyone over.  He presented His case and let people make up their own minds about His kingdom.

I am eager to follow a leader who says, “I care about you.  Come follow me.”  But I resist following anyone who says, “Do what I tell you to do just because I tell you to do it.”  Uh uh.

Fourth, a church grants a pastor power when it trusts him.  When should a pastor begin to make major changes in a church?  Some experts say, “The pastor should start making changes from Day One.  He’s in his ‘honeymoon period’ and can do no wrong.”  Others counter by saying, “But how can a pastor institute major changes when he doesn’t yet know the congregation or the community?”

For example, Ronald Richardson summarizes the view of Israel Galindo in Galindo’s book The Hidden Lives of Congregations: “A believer in longer pastoral tenures, he suggests that it may take about five years to get to know a congregation well enough to articulate a vision of ministry.  This seems exactly right to me.  During that time, the pastor can become an accurate observer of the congregation, get to know the subterranean forces at work, and make a solid connection with the leaders and members, finding out what ‘church’ means to them.  It is also critical that the pastor find ways to honor and respect the members of this church and what they have created over time.  Within this context, the pastor then courageously upholds a vision for mission and ministry that fits that specific congregation.”

A pastor cannot go into a church and automatically implement an agenda that he’s read about or seen work in another situation.  Every area and fellowship are unique.

The wise pastor realizes that trust takes time.  This is why a pastor’s best years begin after he’s been in a church for at least five years.  The people have learned that the pastor truly knows them, understands them, loves them and wants what is best for them.  He doesn’t view the church as a mass of statistics but as a collection of individuals and families whom he deeply treasures.

If a pastor truly loves the people of his church, then he should retain the title “pastor.”  If he sends off signals that he doesn’t love them, then he should be called “reverend” or “CEO” or “your royal highness” – anything but “pastor.”

That’s a title that must be earned over time.

Finally, a pastor’s power needs to be shared.  While I thank God for all the leaders in the Old Testament, I don’t think that pastors should ever be viewed strictly as generals (like Joshua) or kings (like David) or prophets (like Amos).  While Israel did have elders, the OT is filled with stories of individuals making decisions in consultation with God alone.

But the New Testament applauds a plurality of leaders in a local church setting.  Read Paul’s words to the elders in Ephesus (Acts 20:17-38) or Paul’s instructions about overseers to Timothy (1 Timothy 3:1-7) and Titus (Titus 1:5-9) or Peter’s admonitions to elders (1 Peter 5:1-5).  There isn’t just one governing leader in a local church – there are many.  Some elders are set apart and paid because of their giftedness in leading and teaching (1 Timothy 5:17-18) but every NT church has multiple leaders – not just one.

However, I believe that a pastor needs to set the agenda for a church.  As he reads Scripture, prays, studies the community, and learns the congregation, the Lord gives him a direction for the church.  (If a pastor chooses to implement change without the governing leaders, that’s a formula for termination.)

The pastor then shares his agenda with the leaders.  Unless the pastor is promoting heresy or building his own kingdom, those leaders need to take the time to understand that agenda so they can fully stand behind it.

No church can have a board alone set the agenda.  I can’t think of a single church that is doing anything for Jesus where the board casts the vision.  That’s going nowhere.

Instead, the pastor needs the leaders to help promote and explain and even defend his God-given agenda.

But more than anything, the pastor needs the board’s counsel as to the timing of the agenda.  If the pastor gets too far out ahead of the congregation, some people will become highly anxious and conflict will break out.  If the pastor lags behind the congregation, there may be calls for a new leader!

This is why leadership is an art, not a science – and why your pastor needs your prayers so very much.

 

Read Full Post »

A Story of Reconciliation

Posted in Church Conflict, Conflict with Church Antagonists, Forgiveness and Reconciliation among Christians, Pastoral Termination, Personal Stories on July 20, 2011| 2 Comments »

Ever work alongside someone with whom you just didn’t get along?

How did things end for you?

The first church that I served as pastor met in a school cafeteria.  The district gave us advance warning that they had sold the property to a developer and that we would have to move by a certain date.

A sister church nearby invited us to merge with them, so after a brief period of negotation, we did just that.

One of the board members from the other church was a man I’ll call Bob.  When the two boards initially met, Bob stood out because he was outspoken and opinionated, even though some of his views didn’t make much sense to me.

I liked Bob personally.  He seemed to be a good husband and father and was warm and kind to our family.  In fact, after I’d been at the church only 18 months, he arranged for me to attend an event at a midwestern seminary and to stay with his son and his family.  Bob even leant me his heavy coat for the meetings.  (The wind chill that week got down to -35 degrees.)

While I was very grateful to Bob for his kindness, I wondered if he had ulterior motives.  Was he trying to buy my favor in some way?

As our church slowly made changes designed to reach younger people, Bob and his wife began to express their dissatisfaction to those in the church’s inner circle.  While most of those people supported me, Bob was becoming increasingly vocal.  Our board held a weekly meeting for spiritual enrichment but Bob was always the odd man out.  His views on everything were vastly different from those of the other board members.

One Sunday, Bob’s wife stopped coming to church.  She couldn’t handle the changes.  A month later, Bob stopped coming as well.  Even though I was suffering from a cold, two board members and I visited Bob and his wife in their home to find out why they were so disgruntled.

They told us they hated the music.  They disagreed strongly with the changes that were being made.  And then Bob’s wife left the room and began to work in the kitchen.

The meeting was essentially over.

In consultation with the board, we decided to move ahead and implement the changes we had already planned on making.  While I heard rumbles from Bob and his wife from time-to-time, they chose to attend another church, for which I was very grateful.

Then a year later, everything changed.

A board member from my first church had been teaching a Bible class for seniors on Sunday mornings.  This man had been a pastor for many years but was now a school teacher, and yet he longed to be in ministry again.  He began to criticize some of the changes that our church had been making.  This may have been his way of feeling important again, but his sentiments began to sabotage our ministry.

Before I knew what was happening, some of the people in this class invited Bob to return to the church and help them.

One Sunday, I was scheduled to speak from Mark 6 where King Herod Antipas beheads John the Baptist.  Bob sat several rows from me with his arms crossed, staring me down the whole time.  When the service was over, Bob told the board chairman that my message was aimed directly at him.  To his credit, the board chairman told Bob, “Look at the bulletin.  We were in Mark 5 last week.  We’re in Mark 6 this week.”  But Bob remained unconvinced.

So Bob and his new followers decided to get organized.  They scheduled a “secret meeting” at someone’s house.  When one of the board members announced his intention to attend the meeting, it was quickly cancelled.

Eventually 17 people met with one goal in mind: to get rid of me as their pastor.

They used every trick in the book to accomplish their mission.  They accused me of being a dictator.  They made charges against my family.  They called up people who had left the church to find dirt on me.  They compiled a list of all my faults.

It wasn’t an easy time to live through.  To be honest, I don’t know how I made it.  The board and I had worked together on all the changes, and we implemented them very slowly – almost too slowly.

In fact, the whole board told me that if I quit, they would all leave the church together, in effect giving the church to Bob and his minions.

Bob then went to the district minister and laid out his case against me.  When the district minister and I spoke on the phone, he recommended that I resign.

I chose to stay and fight instead.  It proved to be the right decision.

It all came to a head when our denomination held their annual meetings in the city where our church was located.  Bob and his group left our church and started a church in a school one mile away.  They had between 20 and 25 people meeting there.  Our church was their only mission field.

Some of our people visited that church because they had friends there.  But in almost every case, they returned to our fellowship.

Anyway, Bob wanted recognition from the district for his new church.  I told the district minister that if they recognized Bob’s church – which was organized not to perpetuate the gospel but to fire missiles at our church – that we would leave the district.

It wasn’t a pretty time.

At the annual meetings, Bob did something unprecedented.  While my wife and I were working with scores of children upstairs, Bob was downstairs passing out literature about his new church – which had not been sanctioned by the district.  And every chance he had, he took verbal shots at me.

I asked our district leaders if they would do something about Bob’s conduct.  They said they didn’t have the authority to do anything.  Finally, a couple pastor friends collected the literature about Bob’s church and threw everything in the trash!

It’s hard for me to believe that I lived through those days.

Bob and I went our separate ways after that.  After a year, his church disbanded.

Without Bob and his crew, our church eagerly looked forward to the future, and several years later, we had tripled our attendance.

I felt terrible for the people who had followed Bob to his new church.  They were now spiritually homeless.  While I had initially assumed they had left our church because they disliked me, I found out that wasn’t the case.

They didn’t dislike me or our church at all – they were seduced by someone who made them feel important.

One night, I was informed that a woman who had left our church for Bob’s church was dying.  She didn’t have long to live.  When I went to visit her in the hospital, who did I run into there?

Bob.

While this woman slept, Bob and I talked across her hospital bed.  Life had changed for both of us.  While Bob wasn’t doing well, life was on the upswing for me.

I don’t remember much about what we said to each other that night, but I do remember that Bob had pegged me all wrong.  He had completely distorted my motives.  He had some issues with authority anyway, and viewed me through the lens of unresolved conflicts from his past.

The fighting was over.

We left the room, went down the elevator together, and spoke with each other outside the hospital before parting amiably.

We had finally reconciled.

And I was glad we had, because several years later, Bob’s best friend – who attended our church – died suddenly.  When Bob and his wife came to pay their respects at their friend’s home, we were all on speaking terms and worked together to bring comfort to the family.

Bob and I never really understood each other.  It was appropriate that we parted ways.  God had given our church a clear mission that Bob couldn’t support, so he needed to find a church whose mission he could get behind.

I truly wish that every conflict story ended with reconciliation.  A few do, while most don’t.

But I try to live by the words of Paul in Romans 12:18: “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”

Is there someone that God wants you to reconcile with today?

What is it possible for you to do to make that a reality?

Read Full Post »

Worth Fighting For

Posted in Church Conflict, Fighting Evil on July 18, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Winston Churchill is one of my few heroes.

When Time named their Person of the Century in 1999, they gave the award to Albert Einstein, truly a great man in a century dominated by scientists.

But without Churchill, we might be living under a Nazi flag.

I’ve had the privilege of visiting some Churchill sites, including Blenheim Palace (his birthplace and boyhood home), the nearby churchyard in Bladon (his final resting place), and the underground War Rooms in London, from which he coordinated the British fight against Hitler’s Germany.

Right now, I’m reading William Manchester’s second volume on Churchill entitled The Last Lion: Alone 1932-1940, and I’m continually drawing parallels between the way Sir Winston viewed the Nazis and the way churches deal with antagonists.

The First World War was horrendous, resulting in 885,138 combat deaths for England and 2,050,897 deaths for Germany – not counting wounded soldiers.  When the Allied Powers drew up the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, they threw the book at Germany, demanding financial reparations totaling $442 billion in today’s currency (Germany made their last payment on October 4, 2010), forcing them to disarm, and making them take full responsibility for the war.

While the German leaders at the time tried to cooperate, Hitler and his cronies began their slow rise to power.  Hitler telegraphed much of what he did – through his autobiography Mein Kampf, his speeches, and various interviews.

After he became Chancellor of the Reich in 1933, Hitler charmed diplomats from countries like England, assuring them that he was rebuilding the German military only for defensive purposes.  Still gun-shy 15 years after the end of World War 1, the nations of Europe – and their leaders – chose to believe him.

All the while, Hitler was training young men to be soldiers, cranking out munitions at a non-stop pace, and putting together a top-flight air force, the Luftwaffe.

There were British citizens inside Germany who knew exactly what Hitler was doing.  But when they sent their data to the Foreign Office in London, they chose to ignore the facts, convincing themselves that Hitler’s military buildup had no relevance for England.

But Churchill knew better.

While still a member of the House of Commons, Churchill had been banished from any top leadership posts in His Majesty’s Government.  Whenever he rose to speak in the House, his views were ridiculed because he was relegated to being a Backbencher.

But Churchill had a friend who lived near his Chartwell home who consistently delivered hard data about the Fuhrer’s real intentions.  Churchill had to be careful with the information because if he shared too much in public, politicians and journalists would demand to know where he obtained it.

Let me share with you four parallels between how England viewed Hitler and how many churches view conflict:

First, most people are conflict-avoiders.  The British did not wish to fight any country so soon after the Great War, a conflict that the United States entered late in the game.  And even when Hitler conquered Poland and bombed London, our country publicly remained isolationist.  (We didn’t officially enter World War 2 until Pearl Harbor.)

Most of us act the same way.  If there is a conflict in our family, we avoid it as long as we can.  If there is a shouting match between politicians on television, we turn the channel.  And if there is conflict at church, we look the other way or deny that it’s happening.  After all, we reason, it’s not my fight.

The truth is, even if it is our fight, we’ll do almost anything not to fight – and that emboldens certain people.

Second, there are usually signs that conflict is brewing.  The increasing number of German soldiers and munitions – along with the expelling of Jews – was a clear indication that something ominous was about to occur on the Continent.  Conflict almost never erupts without warning.  Those whose eyes are open can usually connect the dots.

During the message time at our church yesterday, we saw a video interview of a father and mother.  Their son had been acting strangely but they had no idea what was wrong.  As it turned out, he was on drugs, eventually taking both ecstasy and heroin.  The signs of drug usage were there, but this couple – who prided themselves on having a harmonious, loving family – refused to admit that their son could be involved with any mind-altering substances.

Denial in the face of evil can lead to destruction, not life.

Something similar happens in church life.  We don’t want to believe that the pastor is immersed with pride, or the youth pastor is getting too close to that Jr. High girl, or that board member has destructive intentions.  While the warning signs are there, we don’t act on them.

If the problem is within your authority, deal with it as soon as possible, using Matthew 18:15-20 as a guide.  If the problem lies within someone else’s purview, inform them quickly.  If you see something that concerns you, speak up and take action!  Delay leads to defeat, not victory.

Third, call evil for what it is.  The first time I heard about Adolph Hitler was when I was five years old.  (Hitler had committed suicide only fifteen years earlier.)  The atrocities he committed were still fresh on everyone’s mind, bolstered by The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by journalist William L. Shirer in 1959 (the longest book I’ve ever read besides The Bible).

When I entered fourth grade, our class saw a lot of newsreels of Hitler.  We saw him making speeches.  We saw the torchlight parades in Nuremberg.  We saw the Nazis burning books (that spot is now a peaceful little park in East Berlin) and the Jews being fed into ovens.  We saw images of evil that never left my innocent little brain.

And much to the credit of my teachers, we learned how Hitler came to power, fooled his own people, and disguised his true intentions to the world.

In other words, we learned how to detect evil before it openly surfaced.

Please hear me: evil isn’t confined to dictators.  You will find evil in churches, too.  And not just evil actions; people can be evil.

How can you tell who they are?

They never admit they do anything wrong.  They blame all problems on other people.  They disguise their real intentions and lie about others – especially leaders.

Their ultimate goal?  The destruction of church leaders so THEY can be in control and call the shots.

Scott Peck wrote about such people in his book People of the Lie.  It’s a chilling read.  Lloyd Rediger has also written about such people in his book Clergy Killers.

Hitler was evil.  Sadly, a handful of church people are evil, too.  I hope no one like that is in your church, but evil people have been known to infiltrate churches.

I’ve met a few.  Have you?

Finally, Christians have to be willing to fight evil.  Whenever Hitler bombed London, businessmen and families headed for shelter, especially in the depths of the British subway system known as the Tube.  They ran from evil.

But the British war planes couldn’t hide in the Tube.  It was their job to take on evil – and they did so nobly.  We might not be living in a free country if the British hadn’t confronted Nazi evil in their own backyard.

No Christian should go looking for evil in a church.  Churches have enough hyper-critics.  But when evil rears its ugly head, and it’s obvious there are people bent on destroying the pastor or other leaders, evil must be resisted – and defeated.

Evil cannot be appeased.

A few weeks ago, I caught The Two Towers – the second film in The Lord of the Rings trilogy – on television.  At the end of the film, as Frodo is nearly possessed by the ring’s evil, he says, “I can’t do this, Sam.”  In what is probably my favorite speech in any movie, Sam replies:

“I know.  It’s all wrong.  By rights we shouldn’t even be here.  But we are.  It’s like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo.  The ones that really mattered.  Full of darkness and danger, they were.  And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end.  Because how could the end be happy?  How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened?  But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow.  Even darkness must pass.  A new day will come.  And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer.  Those were the stories that stayed with you.  That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why.  But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand.  I know now.  Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. They kept going.  Because they were holding on to something.”

Frodo asked wearily, “What are we holding onto, Sam?”

Sam replied, “That there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo … and it’s worth fighting for.”

Churchill would be proud.

Read Full Post »

Deadly Board Sins

Posted in Church Conflict, Conflict with Church Board on July 13, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Several decades ago, a woman was dying in a church I served as pastor.  She did calligraphy and offered to use her talent to write out a few Bible passages that I loved.  One of the passages was Jeremiah 1:6-7.  After the Lord calls Jeremiah to be “a prophet to the nations” in verse 5, Jeremiah counters by saying in verse 6: “Ah, Sovereign Lord, I do not know how to speak.  I am only a child.”

The Lord responds in verse 7, “Do not say, ‘I am only a child.’  You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you.  Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you.”

Like Jeremiah, prophecy is one of my top spiritual gifts.  For me, it’s not the ability to foretell the future but to forthtell the Word of God in a contemporary setting.  I see things other people don’t see – and honestly wish I didn’t.  I’d gladly trade this gift for the gift of encouragement or leadership or evangelism, but the choice has never been mine.

So I try and use the gift in love, all the while realizing that while some people wish I’d shut up, others stopped listening a long time ago.  In fact, there have been times when I’ve tried to shut myself up – but it’s ultimately futile.  As long as I draw breath, there are issues that I have to speak up about and speak out against – even if few are listening.

Try as I might, I cannot remain silent.

I mention this because last year, I spent some time with a pastor friend who is tough, smart, energetic, visionary, and purposeful.  Over the years, he grew an influential and impactful church in his community.  He amassed an all-star staff and earned glowing credentials.  If any pastor seemed immune to having trouble with his church board, he was the guy I’d nominate.

Now he’s gone.

One day, his biography was on the church website.  The next time I looked, it disappeared – and without any explanation.

And it was all because of a major disagreement he had with the church board.

What in the world is going on in churches these days?

I served on church boards – whether they were called deacons, elders, or the Board of Directors – for 28 years.  In most churches, the pastor automatically becomes a member of the board.  I’ve wrestled with hundreds of issues and sat through 7-hour board meetings and many weekend retreats.

So while I know what it’s like to be a board member, most board members have no idea what it’s like to be a pastor.  And yet church boards keep making the same mistakes with their pastors, especially when conflict surfaces.

Here’s a list of deadly sins that church boards often make:

First, they fail to view the pastor as a professional.  Several decades ago, the pastor was often the best-educated person in any given church.  Besides obtaining an undergraduate degree, the pastor was also expected to obtain a Master of Divinity degree which took three full years to earn.  Many pastors now have Doctor of Ministry degrees as well.

And we were expected to pursue ordination which involved an oral examination on biblical and theological issues in the presence of ministerial colleagues.

Many people in a church are equally well-educated in their fields.  They too have earned credentials.

A pastor wouldn’t think of telling an attorney or a computer programmer or a doctor how to do their job.  So why do so many board members think they know how to lead and teach and shepherd a church better than a credentialed pastor?

Yes, pastors make mistakes.  No, pastors are not infallible.  But the job of a church board is to understand the pastor’s agenda and to bolster it in every way they can.  After all, the pastor walks the halls of the church all week long.  He has a unique view of the entire ministry.  Board members put their feet on the campus maybe two or three times a week, and then only for a few hours.

Why, then, do so many boards choose not to a support a pastor’s vision but to sabotage it instead?

The best boards do everything they can to support their pastor’s vision for advancing their church.  The worst boards think they know best and either block the pastor’s vision or substitute their own.

That’s Deadly Sin Number One.

Second, they side with staff members over against the pastor.  In most congregationally-run churches, the congregation elects the board, the pastor works for the board, and the staff work for the pastor.  If individual staff members aren’t getting along with the pastor, then they need to work matters out with the pastor – period.  If they can’t do that, then the staff member needs to resign and go somewhere else.

Unless the pastor is violating Scripture or acting illegally, he runs the staff, not the board.

But increasingly in churches today, when a staff member isn’t getting along with the pastor, he goes to several board members and complains to them about the pastor.  The board members then become advocates for that staff member.  So if the pastor tries to reprimand the staff member, or eventually fires him or her, the board ends up defending the staff member instead.

How can a pastor then stay in a church where the board (a) has stolen staff supervision from him, (b) has chosen a staff member over their pastor, and (c) has destroyed the trust between board and pastor?

That’s Deadly Sin Number Two.

Third, they begin making decisions without the pastor.  Twenty years ago, the leaders of the church I was serving as pastor were engaged in a project for which we needed approval from the City Council.  We put together packets for all seven Council members but were only allowed to meet with three of them – and those three had to publicly disclose that they had met with us before the meeting.  This arose out of the Brown Act, a law passed in California in 1953 designed to stop public officials from holding undisclosed, informal meetings away from public scrutiny.

In other words, the Brown Act was designed to keep the members of a City Council or County Supervisors from meeting in secret and making decisions without any public input.

We need a Brown Act in our churches today as well.

It’s one thing for board members to discuss matters between themselves before and after meetings.  It’s another thing for them to deliberate and make decisions without the knowledge or input of the pastor.  (“I’ll back you up.  Will you back me up?”)

It’s the equivalent of declaring war on the pastor and on the church.

If and when a pastor discovers that a church board is making decisions behind his back – even if they aren’t meeting together physically but through conference calls or email – the pastor knows instinctively that either he needs to leave or the board needs to leave.

That’s Deadly Sin Number Three.

That’s enough deadly sins for today.  I’ll share four more in my next article – if you can handle the truth!

Read Full Post »

Forced Apologies

Posted in Church Conflict, Forgiveness and Reconciliation among Christians on July 8, 2011| 7 Comments »

Have you ever been accused of doing something that you didn’t do – and someone demanded that you apologize to them?

One time, the church I was pastoring held a service on a major holiday.  After the service, the musicians and vocalists and others involved in the service were milling about and congratulating each other on a job well done – all except for a man who had also participated in the service.  Out of the blue, he told me that he overheard me saying something derogatory about him right after I closed the service.  He was visibly hurt – and angry.  He implied that I better apologize to him – and quickly.

But I didn’t say anything negative about him at all.  In fact, I don’t think I had ever said anything negative about him in my entire life.

When I tried to tell this gentleman that he was somehow mistaken, he insisted that his hearing was excellent and that he had heard me loud and clear.

I had to give him credit for speaking with me directly and swiftly.  He didn’t let it fester and he didn’t spread his discontent to others.  But he was just plain mistaken.  I never said what he claimed I said.

Now what should I have done?  What would you have done?

I apologized – and have regretted it ever since.

Pastors face this problem all the time, as do believers in visible roles like staff members, ministry leaders, vocalists, and musicians.  Well-meaning individuals sometimes misinterpret what we say or do – or accuse us of doing things we never did or saying things we never said.  And when the matter finally comes to our attention, the person who is upset with us demands an apology.  Should we give it?

Many Bible teachers say, “Yes, we should.  It is important for Christians to get along with each other, so if I offend you, and it comes to my attention, then it is my responsibility to apologize to you and make things right with you.”  Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:22-24 are often cited as the text that supports this idea.  (Although I have never been convinced by some of the interpretations of this passage that I’ve heard.)

But incidents from Jesus’ own life make me wonder.

I John 2:6 says that “whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.”  Although Jesus led a sinless life, He is still our Ultimate Role Model.  Believers are to major in Christlikeness.  WWJD, right?

What do we do with the story in Matthew 15:1-14 then?

On this occasion, the Pharisees and teachers of the Jewish law confronted Jesus about the fact that His disciples didn’t wash their hands ceremonially before eating.  Jesus defended His followers by accusing the Jewish authorities of being hypocritical in the way that they applied Scripture to their lives.

Jesus’ disciples came to Him privately and informed Him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”

Now if Jesus responded to this charge the way that many preachers teach us to, then He would have said, “You know, you guys are right.  I was a little hard on those leaders, wasn’t I?  The next time I see them, I’ll tell them I was sorry and that it won’t happen again.”

What did Jesus say instead?

In Matthew 15:13-14, He said, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.  Leave them; they are blind guides.  If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into the pit.”

Did you catch that?  Instead of expressing remorse that He had offended the Jewish leaders, Jesus intensified His attack against them by calling them “blind guides.”

Now Jesus clearly offended the Jewish leaders, and if He wanted to get along with them – and set a good example for His closest followers – then He should have apologized to them, correct?  The text seems to imply that’s what they wanted from Him.

But Jesus refused to do it.  Why?  Because He didn’t do anything wrong.  And if He had apologized, it would have been a lie.

And even though Jesus was accused of doing and saying many wrong things during His three-year ministry, He never apologized for anything He said or did.

Had you and I been living during Jesus’ ministry, we probably would have been offended by some of the things He said as well.  For example, we’re told in John 6:60-66 that Jesus made some statements that offended the crowds to the point that most of them deserted Him.  His congregation dwindled significantly.

Faced with an identical set of circumstances, some pastors might have gone on television to explain themselves a little better, or taken out a full-page ad in the newspaper.  Not Jesus.  He let them all go – without apologizing.

This means there will be times when leaders offend people and they need to stand by what they said or did.  But if a leader has done something wrong, he or she does need to apologize for it.

One time, a church leader wanted to meet with me and “clear the air” over some issues.  He brought a whole list of things that I had done to offend him.  (I wish he had kept short accounts and spoken with me about each issue as it arose, however.)  I sincerely apologized for a couple of behaviors where I was wrong, and he said he forgave me – but I staunchly disagreed with some of the other issues he raised, and I did not apologize for those.

Which of the following three leaders would you rather follow?

Leader One never admits he makes any mistakes.  If he gets a date or a name wrong in a sermon, and you mention it to him, he’ll defend himself rather than admit he did anything wrong.  If he falsifies an expense report, and you happen to catch him, then God help you for confronting him.  This kind of leader blames all of his problems on other people.

Leader Two is always apologizing for everything.  She apologizes if she makes a tough decision and someone is hurt by it.  She apologizes if even one person doesn’t like what she says after leading her small group.  She even apologizes for sharing the gospel with a seeker if someone objects to being identified as a sinner.

(I once knew a woman who apologized to the congregation before she sang a solo.  She was sitting near me in the back of the church, and right before she got up to sing, she overheard someone mentioning her name and assumed it was done in a negative fashion.  When the soloist got up to sing, she told the congregation that even though she knew that some people didn’t care for her singing, she would try and do her best for the Lord!  What she never heard – but I did – was that the woman who mentioned her name was looking forward to hearing her sing!)

Leader Three apologizes to the appropriate party when he has done something wrong.  He realizes that as a leader, people will occasionally misinterpret what he says and misunderstand what he does.  When he’s wrong, he quickly admits it – often before anyone confronts him on his offense.  When he’s right, he stands his ground and tries to deal with the hurt feelings that someone might be feeling.

(This whole area of forced apologies gets trickier when a husband and wife have a big argument, so for now, this article applies only to church leaders!)

If Christians are to live in community with each other inside a local church, then we all need to admit that we make mistakes at times, ask people to forgive us for those mistakes, and then grant people forgiveness when they do mess up.  This should be an ongoing part of church life – and it should all be done from the heart.

But when certain people insist that we’ve sinned against them – and we know that we haven’t – then we need to follow Jesus’ example and stand our ground.

Read Full Post »

Take Your Hands Off the Church!

Posted in Church Conflict, Conflict with the Pastor, tagged , , , , , on July 5, 2011| Leave a Comment »

A friend sent me an article yesterday reporting that Dr. Robert Schuller, founding pastor of the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, California, was voted off the church’s board.  He had retired as the church’s pastor five years before.

Christians often have strong opinions about Dr. Schuller.  I have met believers who watched the Hour of Power every week without fail and loved it.  Others have not been as complimentary.

Dr. Schuller once lived across the street from my uncle and aunt when they lived in Garden Grove.  He invited them to help him begin his drive-in church.  They ended up at a different church instead.

When I was a kid, our family took a Sunday off from our own church and visited Garden Grove Community Church, as it was known then.  We all sat in our car and watched the service from the parking lot.  While it was definitely different, it was hard to see what was going on from our car’s back seat.

Years later, when I was in seminary, I read Dr. Schuller’s book Your Church Has Real Possibilities!  The book upset me.  There was little Scripture to back up Schuller’s approach to church growth.  Instead, he married American business principles with church ministry.  I probably wrote more disparaging comments in the margins of that book than any other book I’ve ever read, even though his ministry seemed “successful” at the time.

Eleven years ago, my son lived about a mile from the church, so one Sunday I decided I’d attend a service at the famous Crystal Cathedral.  While I didn’t care for the dueling organs or the TV cameras, Dr. Schuller spoke on “You shall not commit adultery” and absolutely nailed the message.  But when I looked around at the congregation, it was obvious the church was aging without reaching younger people.

Let’s put it this way: several years ago, there were twice as many kids at Vacation Bible School at my former church in the Bay Area than they had at VBS that year at the Crystal Cathedral – their multi-story children’s building notwithstanding.

There are many ways to look at the decline of the Crystal Cathedral: aging leadership, overly optimistic growth projections, too much debt, a watered-down gospel message, an ostentatious property (complete with statues and a cemetery), several unfortunate suicides on church grounds, and an inability to connect with younger people, to name just a few.

But there’s another possibility (no pun intended): Dr. Schuller’s inability to take his hands off the ministry.

Founding pastors have enormous clout in a church.  Their family members form the original core group even before the pastor selects his own.  Everyone who attends the church likes the pastor’s preaching and leadership.  If the average pastor gets two votes on the governing board, the founding pastor gets five.  The power can become intoxicating.

But … when a pastor resigns or retires, he needs to leave that church for good.

For starters, it’s wise for him to leave the community.  If a pastor leaves a church but chooses to live in the area afterwards, his presence will linger like a long, dark shadow over his former church.  And whenever people are disgruntled with their new pastor, they will be tempted to consult with their former pastor.

A friend of mine was the associate pastor in his church.  When the senior pastor stepped down because of a medical condition, my friend was asked to be the senior pastor.  However, the previous pastor remained in the church and the community, gradually undermining my friend’s leadership until he was forced to resign.

People inside the church chose not to follow my friend’s vision for the church because his predecessor failed to support him.  But if the previous pastor had moved away, my friend could have led the church unhindered.

There are exceptions to this practice, of course.  The pastor or a family member might be ill and need to stay in the area for medical treatment.  Or the pastor might have a daughter who wants to complete her senior year of high school before moving.  But even if the former pastor stays in the community …

Next, he should never intervene in that church’s affairs.  My former denomination had a code of ethics for pastors, and those ethics clearly state that once a pastor leaves a church, he is no longer to interfere in the way it’s governed.  If a pastor does intervene, he should be called out on his lack of ethics, but this only works well in hierarchical denominations – and many former pastors know this, which is why some undermine their successors from the cover of darkness.

The pastor, staff, and governing board have been given both the authority and responsibility under God to lead a given local church.  A former pastor – no matter how wise or powerful or popular he is – must relinquish his influence to God.

John the Baptizer said it best while talking about Jesus in John 3:30: “He must become greater; I must become less.”  John was saying, “My ministry is nearly over, while His is just beginning.  It’s time for me to step aside and give someone else the spotlight.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Third, it’s crucial that departing pastors direct complainers back to church leaders.  Let’s say that while I’m writing this article, a friend from a former church calls and wants to tell me about an issue involving the new pastor.  Ethically, I shouldn’t even listen to her concern.  Instead, I need to encourage her to speak directly with her pastor and the church’s governing leaders.

I’m not on campus.  I don’t know all the facts.  Besides, I’ve only heard one side of the story and may never hear the other side.  While I want to help my distressed friend, the best way I can help is to stay out of it and encourage her to resolve matters on her own.  Later on, I wouldn’t want to hear that that pastor was mistreated and wonder if I had something to do with it.

Finally, it’s all too common for pastors to have vendettas against their successors.  Let’s say that I’ve been the pastor of a church for fifteen years.  I’ve grown to love the staff, the leaders, and the people, very, very much.  We did some great things together: increased attendance, baptized new believers, and built a building.  The memories are precious.

But eventually I resign and move out of the area.  And after a while, the church calls a new pastor, someone who doesn’t know me and all the great things I did for the church.  While I’m bewildered as to why the church chose him, I share my opinions with my wife and no one else.

But as time goes on, I begin hearing about some decisions that the new pastor has made, and they baffle me.  When some friends from that church visit me, they tell me how much they despise the changes … and I have a decision to make.

If I agree with my friends at all, I validate their complaints and indirectly embolden them to take action against their pastor.  It’s like I have become their pastor-in-exile – and if they look to me as their pastor, they may want to remove their current pastor from office – and use my words to do it.

Because make no mistake, my opinions still carry enormous weight with some people.

The truth is that some pastors are egomaniacs who always view a former church as their church.  They want to take credit for every good thing that happens at that church even after they’ve left.

They haven’t learned to give all the glory to God.

Let’s return now to Dr. Schuller.  He retired as the senior pastor of Crystal Cathedral at the age of 79 but remained on the church board five more years until he was removed on July 3.

Wouldn’t it have been better for him to leave the church a few years ago – and possibly the entire Orange County area – so that his successor could lead and teach without his gigantic influence?

In fact, Dr. Schuller chose his son to succeed him, and less than three years later, removed him as senior pastor.  Now his daughter leads the church, and a lot of people don’t like the changes she’s made.  The church continues to decline.

While Dr. Schuller did build the church (humanly speaking), the church desperately needs to turn around – and it’s an axiom of leadership that the same leader who built the church cannot turn it around.

Wouldn’t the church benefit without any Schullers but with fresh leadership?

And haven’t attempts to control the church fractured their own family unity?

But here’s the problem: the Schullers can’t take their hands off the ministry.  They seem to view the Crystal Cathedral as their church.  In the process, they’re running it into the ground.

When Dr. Schuller dies, he won’t be able to control the church anymore.  Why not just “die” to the church and walk away right now?

Why not leave it in the capable hands of the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ?

Read Full Post »

How Would You Handle This Church Nightmare?

Posted in Church Conflict, Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with the Pastor, Current Church Issues, Jim's Ten Favorite Articles, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged , , , on July 1, 2011| 2 Comments »

The following post is meant to be interactive.  Along the way, I have included some questions that I’d like to have you answer for your own benefit.  Compare your responses to what actually happened in the story.  Thanks!

Yesterday I read a true story about a church that faced a terrible situation.  The story comes from church consultant Peter Steinke’s book Congregational Leadership in Anxious Times.  I do not wish for anyone to be upset by this story, so please know ahead of time that the story turns out favorably for all.

Here’s what happened:

A young girl in a church accused her pastor of molestation.  Two leaders, Tom and Diane, met privately with the pastor to notify him of the charge.  By state law, they had to report the charge to a governmental agency.

The pastor shook his head and quietly responded, “I have never touched her.  Never.”

1.  Which option would you recommend for the pastor if you were Tom or Diane?

  • Stay and fight the charge.
  • Take a leave of absence.
  • Resign immediately.
  • Hire an attorney.

Which option did you select?

Tom and Diane recommended that the pastor take a leave of absence.

However, the pastor eventually decided against that option because he felt it indicated guilt.  He told the leaders, “I need to clear my name, but I don’t want to drag the church through this for months.”

Tom and Diane knew they had to inform the congregation of the charge, and when they did, a group of members thought the pastor should resign.  The leaders of the church were warned that most cases like this one are based in fact.

2.  What should the leaders do now?

  • Insist that the pastor stay and fight.
  • Encourage him to take a leave of absence.
  • Recommend that the pastor resign.
  • Let the process play itself out.

Which option did you select?

The leaders decided to let the process of justice go forward and stand behind their pastor until the legal system made the next move.

The leaders also decided that they would meet every week for prayer followed by a sharing time where they would openly discuss what they were thinking.

Tom shared that he believed the pastor was innocent.

Diane wondered how stable the girl was based upon the fact that her parents had gone through a terrible divorce two years earlier but had now jointly hired a lawyer.

Another admitted that she was being pressured by other members to withdraw her support for the pastor.

The pastor told the leaders that he would hold no resentment if anyone felt compelled to withdraw their support from him.

One leader chose to resign.

Marie, another leader, stood solidly behind the pastor because she had been falsely accused of something at her own workplace.

A few anxious leaders turned against the pastor and condemned him.

3.  If you attended those weekly meetings, what would you as a leader do now?

  • Insist the pastor stay and fight.
  • Encourage him to take a leave of absence.
  • Recommend that he resign.
  • Let the justice process run its course.

Which option would you select at this point?

The leaders chose the last option once again.

Fourteen weeks later, the charges against the pastor were suddenly dropped.

4.  What should Tom and Diane do now?

  • Verbally berate every person who doubted the pastor’s innocence.
  • Encourage all the doubters to return to the church.
  • Shame those who didn’t stand with the pastor.
  • Just turn the page and move on.

Which option did the leaders select?

They decided to personally contact anyone who doubted the pastor (or the leaders) and welcome them to return to the church – no questions asked.

5.  What did the leaders of this church do that was so unique?

  • They stood behind their pastor whether he was innocent or guilty.
  • They ignored almost everything the congregation told them.
  • They waited for the truth to come out before making a judgment.
  • They took the easy way out.

Which option did you go with?

The third statement best reflects the mindset of this church’s leaders: they chose to let the justice system take its course before deciding the pastor’s future.

According to Steinke, many people facing these conditions become what psychologists call “cognitive misers.”  They instinctively draw either/or conclusions: either the pastor is innocent or he’s guilty.  Either the pastor is good or he is bad.

But the leaders of this church are to be commended for not letting anxiety make their decision for them.  When certain people were calling for the pastor’s resignation – and even staying home from services until he left – the leaders stuck to their original decision and let the legal system do its work.

The pastor’s job, career, and reputation were all saved.

The church’s reputation and future were preserved.

The decision of the leaders was vindicated.

Why?  Because the leaders chose to make their decision based on truth rather than (a) unity, (b) politics, (c) groupthink, or (d) anxiety.

Let me quote Steinke on this issue fully:

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

In other words, the church of Jesus Christ does not crucify its leaders just because someone makes an accusation against them.

Think with me: if unity is more important than truth, then Jesus deserved to be crucified, didn’t He?

The accusations against Jesus caused great distress for Pilate, resulting in turmoil for his wife and animosity between Pilate and the Passover mob.

The Jewish authorities had to resort to loud and vociferous accusations to force Pilate to act.

The women around the cross wept uncontrollably.

The disciples of Jesus all ran off and deserted Him in His hour of need (except John).

Jesus’ countrymen engaged in mocking and taunting while witnessing His execution.

Who caused Pilate, the Jewish authorities, the women, the disciples, and the Jewish people to become angry and upset and depressed?

It was JESUS!  And since He disrupted the unity of His nation, He needed to go, right?

This is the prevailing view among many denominational leaders today.  If a pastor is accused of wrongdoing, and some people in the church become upset, then the pastor is usually advised to resign to preserve church unity, even before people fully know the truth – and even if the pastor is totally innocent.

In fact, there are forces at work in such situations that don’t want the truth to come out.

That is … if unity is more important than truth.

But if the charges against Jesus – blasphemy against the Jewish law and sedition against the Roman law – were false and trumped up, then Jesus should have gone free even if His release caused disunity in Jerusalem.

The point of Steinke’s story is that leaders – including pastors – need to remain calm during turbulent times in a church.  There are always anxious people who push the leaders to overreact to relieve them of their own anxiety.

If Pilate hadn’t overreacted … if the mob hadn’t … if Jesus’ disciples hadn’t … would Jesus still have been crucified?

Divinely speaking: yes.  It was the only way He could pay for our sins.

Humanly speaking: no.  What a travesty of justice!

20 centuries later, Jesus’ followers can do a better job of handling nightmarish accusations against pastors.

Instead of becoming anxious, they can pray for a calm and peaceful spirit.

Instead of making quick decisions, they can make deliberate ones.

Instead of aiming for destruction, they can aim for redemption.

Instead of holding up unity as the church’s primary value, truth should be viewed that way.

If the pastor in this story had been guilty of a crime, then the leaders would have had to agree on a different course of action.  Sadly, these things do happen in our day, even in churches.

But in this case, the leaders stood strong and did not let the anxiety of others – or their own – determine the destiny of their pastor and church.

They opted for truth instead, and the truth will set you – and everyone else – free.

Read Full Post »

Why Do Staff Flip on Their Pastor?

Posted in Church Conflict, Conflict with Church Staff, Conflict with the Pastor, tagged , , , , on June 29, 2011| 6 Comments »

In my last post, I discussed a problem that seems to be increasingly prevalent in our day: staff members forming alliances with board members or other staff against their pastor.

This kind of behavior is one of the reasons why pastors are being forced to resign from their positions at the rate of 1,300 every month.

Of course, we can find an example of this inside Jesus’ inner circle when Judas collaborated with the Jewish authorities to tell them where Jesus was hiding out the night before He died.

Betraying an innocent man is an evil action, whether it’s Judas flipping on the Messiah or a staff member turning on his pastor.

Theologians have wrestled for centuries about Judas’ motives for turning in Jesus.  Was it purely for the thirty pieces of silver he received?  Was it because Jesus disappointed Judas in some fashion, like not being the political leader he wanted Him to be?  Was it because of Satan’s gradual influence in Judas’ life?

We may never know for sure this side of heaven.  However, let me share with you four reasons why staff members – most often, associate pastors – flip on their supervisor, the senior pastor – and I’m assuming here that the senior pastor is innocent of any major wrongdoing.

First, the associate pastor wants to be a lead pastor.  I wanted to be a pastor when I was nineteen years old, but I knew I’d have to finish college, complete seminary, and be ordained before that would happen.  I was a youth pastor in three churches before ordination, and because none of those churches had associates, I was the top staff member in the church behind the pastor in each situation.  While it was no secret that I wanted to become a pastor, I knew that I had to undergo a process before that would ever occur – and I had a lot to learn.  There was no way I could hurry the process along.  Since I believed that God had called me to preach, it was a matter of waiting for God’s timing.

It never occurred to me to conspire with some board members to “take out” the pastor so that I could become the senior pastor – and no one ever suggested it to me.

However, this scenario is happening more and more in churches, and when it does, my guess is that most people never discover what really happened.  All they know is that the lead pastor resigned and that the board announced that the associate would assume the pastor’s duties – either as an interim or as a pastoral candidate.  Most people never discover that the associate and some board members engineered the whole thing.

A variation on this is that the staff member resigns and starts a new church a short distance away from his former church.  The core group for the new church is almost exclusively composed of friends from the ministry he just left.  This kind of church plant creates pain for all parties that lasts for years.

Second, the associate chooses to rebel against the lead pastor.  Senior pastors all have different management styles.  Of the five I served under, only one was directive, while the others let me run my own ministry.  The only pastor who really gave me direct orders was the first one – and I did my best to do what he said.

As a pastor, I tried to hire staff members who were self-starters and who could do their job better than I could.  While I gave them general direction, I rarely gave them orders – and when I did, they usually didn’t like it.

Here’s my theory: when a pastor hires a staff member, he often does a “sales job” to convince that person to come aboard.  Sometimes the sales job continues for a few months as the pastor acclimates the associate to the ministry.

But when the pastor has to correct the associate for any reason, he becomes upset and thinks that the lead pastor has turned on him.  Looking back over my ministry, I have found that this was often the key moment in our relationship.  In my mind, I was just trying to make their ministry better, but in their mind, I was criticizing them needlessly.

When I was in eighth grade, I had a math teacher named Mr. Heymers.  Even though he was young in age and short in stature, he started the year using a firm tone and letting us know in precise terms what he expected from us.  Most of us were scared of Mr. Heymers at first, but as the year progressed, he loosened up a lot.  He became the best math teacher I ever had.

When I supervised staff, I may have started a bit too loose, so when I eventually had to get firm about something, some staff members couldn’t handle it – and they went in search of allies.

By the way, I believe that if a staff member is given a direct order by the senior pastor (provided he’s not asking him or her to sin), and the staff member refuses to carry out the senior pastor’s directive, the staff member is guilty of insubordination and subject to dismissal.  While I never fired a staff member for this reason, in several cases, maybe I should have.

Third, the associate has an immature spouse.  Which of the following associate pastors has the best chance for success?

Associate A is married to a woman who never wanted to be a pastor’s wife.  She has a high opinion of her husband and an even higher opinion of herself.  She constantly tells her husband things like, “You’re a better preacher than the lead pastor.  You’re a better leader.  You work harder than he does.  You should receive more recognition.  You should be paid more.”  And when her husband comes home and says he had a disagreement with the senior pastor, she becomes angry and complains about the pastor to family and friends – most of whom take her side.

Associate B is married to a woman who believes she was called to be a pastor’s wife.  While she believes her husband is a gifted man, she constantly encourages him to work with the senior pastor in collaboration, not competition.  She tells him often, “Our pastor is a good preacher, and I thank God for him.  You’re a good preacher too, although you’re both different.  You’re a wonderful leader as well, although you still have some issues to work on.  While I wish you made more money, our day will come.”  And when her husband tells her about a disagreement that he had with the lead pastor, she tries to get him to see his supervisor’s viewpoint as well as understanding his.

The first associate is far more susceptible to flipping on the senior pastor because of an entitlement mentality.  The second associate can look forward to a long career in ministry because he’s waiting for God to elevate him.

Fourth, the associate starts collaborating with a board or staff member.  If an associate has problems with the senior pastor – and I’ve been in this position myself – he has four options: (a) prayerfully submit to the pastor’s wishes, (b) discuss the situation directly with the pastor, (c) seek counsel from someone outside the church (like a counselor, a pastoral colleague, or a seminary professor), or (d) leave that ministry.  If the associate doesn’t feel he can speak directly with the pastor (or has tried but become frustrated), he may look around the church for sympathetic ears and “triangle” someone into their situation.  This is where division starts.

Once the associate finds this person, then (a) he stops working on his relationship with the senior pastor, and (b) his new collaborator carries his burden for him.  In fact, the collaborator may very well pass on the associate’s complaints to other board or staff members – and over time, a consensus may form: the senior pastor has to go.

The lead pastor’s offense?  “He hurt and upset the associate pastor – whom many of us love very much.”

Let me share two possible solutions for this perennial problem:

First, if the associate cannot support the senior pastor anymore, he should resign as soon as possible.  Don’t stay in the church and undermine the pastor, forcing him to leave – the associate should leave quietly.  It is not up to the senior pastor to adjust to the staff – it is up to the staff to adjust to the senior pastor.

Second, the associate pastor may choose to admit his mistakes to both God and the senior pastor and renegotiate their relationship.  This is possible only if the associate hasn’t already complained to others inside the church about the lead pastor.  A humble, teachable spirit works wonders.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »