Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Church Conflict’ Category

Toward More Peaceful Church Meetings

Posted in Church Conflict, Church Health and Conflict on December 20, 2010| 2 Comments »

What were you attracted to as a teenager?  Sports?  Some cute guy or girl?  A cool car?  An athlete or rock star?

I was attracted to church business meetings.

I know that sounds really strange, but let me tell you why I was drawn to those meetings.

The church I attended had a business meeting periodically on a Wednesday night after prayer meeting.  While my peers played in the parking lot or went home to watch TV, I sat in the back of the worship center and watched “mature” Christian men and women act like kids.  Arguments usually broke out.  Tempers almost always flared.  It was quite entertaining at times, especially since I knew so many of the players.  On one famous occasion, after disagreeing vehemently with someone, the church secretary stomped down the center aisle, opened her office door, and slammed it – hard.  That was the last time anybody saw her at that church for years.

There was something inherently destructive about those meetings – and yet they were exciting.  If you were a church member, you were expected to attend.  As the years went on, I moved closer to the front of the auditorium so I could be in the middle of the action.

When I became the pastor of a small church in Northern California, our church had business meetings once per month after the Wednesday night service.  We voted on nearly everything.  Those meetings made me nervous because the unexpected usually happened.

When our church later merged with a sister church five miles away, I became the pastor of that new body.  Soon afterwards, at another infamous business meeting, a board member yelled across the room at the wife of another board member.  It was embarrassing for everybody.

I began to ask myself, “What is it about these meetings that brings out the worst in everybody?  Why do people’s personalities flip when they come to these meetings?  Why do we even have these nefarious meetings in the first place?”

The meetings seemed to be patterned more after the American town hall model than anything we find in the New Testament.

So I began talking to pastor friends, and in the fourth year of my ministry, I hit upon an approach that minimized the conflict in those meetings.  Here’s what we did:

*We changed the terminology.  A “business” meeting sounded like it was only about money.  We replaced that term with “congregational” meeting instead, a term that many churches use.  It said who should attend (the congregation) and the ultimate process used (congregational voting).

*We decided to hold an informational meeting one week before every congregational meeting.  We introduced every issue at the informational meeting that would be decided upon at the congregational meeting: potential board members, budgets, and any other pertinent matters.  And we let non-members attend the informational meeting (after all, they served and gave offerings, too) although only members voted at the congregational meeting.  For a biblical example of holding two meetings to make decisions, look again at Acts 6:1-6.

*We never used Robert’s Rules of Order at the informational meetings.  Different leaders of the church, including me, made presentations to the congregation.  Then at the congregational meeting the following week, we used Robert’s Rules exclusively for voting.  Since hardly anyone in the church knew the rules that were originally created in 1876, those who did ended up controlling the meetings.  So we just eliminated the confusion and encouraged people to talk in an orderly fashion.

*We presented simple etiquette before each meeting, such as, “Use the microphone if you want to say something” or “Feel free to be open and honest but don’t say anything you may later regret.”  While participants had strong opinions – and we wanted to hear them – the way the leaders handled matters up-front usually kept everyone at peace.

*People relaxed at the informational meetings because they didn’t have to vote that day.  They had time during the next seven days to think and pray and talk to others first.  And if conflict broke out at the informational meetings – and it rarely did – church leaders had an entire week to listen to people’s concerns and answer their questions before any vote took place – and if need be, the meeting could be cancelled before anything ominous happened.  By the way, I believe that church leaders should always know the outcome of any churchwide vote in advance, and this system allows leaders to do just that.

*When we met at the congregational meeting to make a decision, we always voted by written ballot.  We never accepted motions where someone called for a voice vote and said, “I move we make it unanimous.”  If God’s people are to vote their conscience, they need to be able to vote “no” as well as “yes” – and most people are uncomfortable voting “no” if they are in the minority.  These meetings typically lasted only ten minutes and were held on Sundays after worship.

*We encouraged a thorough discussion of the issues.  I’m a firm believer that churches should have few secrets.  While pastors cannot ethically discuss what people say in counseling sessions, and church leaders should never share confidences that ruin the reputations of others, I wanted us to be open about everything else.  Even salaries?  I took a class from Leith Anderson where he said that if a person at his church really wanted to know the salary of a pastor or staff member, that person had to first sit through a one-hour presentation so the numbers could be shared in context – and only then would they be given the amount.  I can live with that.

*This system worked beautifully for 24 years of ministry.  During that time, the churches I served as pastor went through some great adventures, like selling our property, relocating, and building a new worship center.  The leaders made well thought-out presentations and asked God’s people if they had questions and concerns, and sometimes people had plenty of input.  The leaders stayed as long as necessary – and no one called for the question, tabled a motion, or recommended we be dismissed to end the proceedings.  Non-anxious leaders tend to produce a non-anxious church body.

If you’re in a church where the public meetings produce conflict rather than harmony, I suggest you implement the above process into your church’s life.  While too many meetings can be a waste of time, it’s better to have two meetings and enjoy peace than it is to jam everything into one meeting and leave people anxious, confused, and upset.

1 meeting for discussion + 1 meeting for decisions = an informed, calm, and united church family

Read Full Post »

Railroaded at Church Meetings

Posted in Church Conflict, Church Health and Conflict, Please Comment!, tagged , , on December 17, 2010| 2 Comments »

Last month, our country held its mid-term elections.  Imagine that you went into the voting booth having no idea who was running for office until you got there.  (If I still lived in California, I’d exclaim, “Oh, no, Jerry Brown is running again?”)  Many of us become familiar with those who are running for major offices, although we still don’t know anything about more than half the names on the ballot.  But how wise would it be for officials to unveil the names of political candidates only on the day of voting?

And yet that’s how thousands of churches choose leaders every year.

When I was in my late teens, I was asked one year to count ballots for the annual business meeting at my church.  95 people cast their ballots for elder, and one man received 20 “no” votes.  Because the candidates only needed to receive a simple majority, he was still elected to office, but shortly afterward, he resigned due to sexual misconduct.  I wonder how many of those 20 people knew something about this man’s life that the rest of us didn’t?  Maybe if some of those people had known ahead of time that his name was being considered for elder, they could have shared what they knew with the pastor or church staff and his name could have been quietly withdrawn.

For years, I attended public church meetings (whether they were called “business” meetings or “congregational” meetings) in which candidates/issues were presented to the church and then the church was expected to take a vote immediately.  This process often raised the anxiety level for people because some of them simply were not ready to make a quick decision.  They wanted time to think, pray, and talk to others before casting their vote.  When they were not given that opportunity, they sometimes claimed they were being “railroaded.”

That’s why I like the process of selecting elders that our church has.  Last Sunday, three potential elders came and stood on the  stage with their wives.  The pastor briefly introduced each person and then referred to their biographies, which were made available on an insert in the program.  Then the pastor said that we had a month to give feedback about these men and we were told how to do that.  Only after the one-month feedback time would these men become elders.

Those who know me know that I am very deliberate when it comes to decision-making.  The more crucial the issue, the longer it takes me to decide, but once I do, I don’t look back.  Whether it’s voting for the President of the United States or an elder in my local church, I take my vote very seriously.  And from the time a candidate’s name is introduced to me, I need time to think, to pray, and if need be, to speak with others.

When a church introduces candidates in a public meeting, and then expects God’s people to vote immediately on those individuals for office, people are denied the ability to think.  They are denied the ability to pray.  They are denied the ability to speak with others.  In a word, they are being manipulated.  Some people may vote “no” on some of the candidates just because they inherently sense this even if they can’t put it into words.  They feel violated.

Why do churches do this?  Sometimes it’s because the leaders figure that people will only come out to one meeting, if that, so that have to take all their votes at once.  Sometimes it’s because the leaders don’t know who is running for office until right before the meeting!  But usually, it’s because of anxiety.  The leaders just want to get the “voting thing” over with.

But if believers aren’t allowed to think, pray, and talk with others, why vote at all?  Then the members end up becoming “sheeple,” just doing whatever their leaders tell them to do.

Is there a better way to handle such meetings?  I believe there is.  That will be the topic of my next blog.

Check out our website at www.restoringkingdombuilders.org  You’ll find Jim’s story, recommended resources on conflict, and a forum where you can ask questions about conflict situations in your church.

Read Full Post »

Scapegoating Pastors

Posted in Church Conflict, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, tagged , , , , on December 14, 2010| Leave a Comment »

Have you ever patronized a business and become friends with someone who works there?  Then one day, you stop by to see your friend but he or she is no longer there.  They have vanished into thin air.  You don’t know where they went, or why they’ve gone, or how they’re doing.  And when you ask questions of people who should know, they become evasive and don’t reveal anything helpful.

When I lived in Silicon Valley, I received medical care at a clinic just ten minutes from my house.  Two doctors at that facility were very helpful to me: a physician specializing in internal medicine and an allergist.  Within a month, I received separate letters about each doctor, stating that he was ill and would no longer be practicing medicine.  I later learned from a nurse I knew that both men died of their illnesses but I never learned any details.  I just know that I felt their loss deeply.

Something similar happened to me when I first became a pastor.  I attended monthly district meetings with pastors from our denomination, and sometimes I noticed that a pastoral colleague missed several meetings in a row.  When I asked the district minister what happened to him, I was told that the pastor in question had resigned from his position.  While that was usually sufficient information for most of the pastors, I always wanted to know why the pastor had resigned.  In every single case, the pastor was blamed for his departure.  It was never the fault of the governing board, or a disgruntled staff member, or a faction in the church.  No, it was always the fault of the pastor.  That was the talking points answer to the question, “What happened to Pastor So-and-So?”

Then I would call that particular pastor and discover that there was another side to the situation, one that few people would have learned about because they had already bought the talking points.  The pastor would tell me about a powerful individual in the church who had been undermining him (and wearing him down) for months, or about a staff member who had aligned himself with the board against the pastor, or about a group of less than ten people who demanded that the pastor leave the church.  In fact, on occasion the pastor’s critics would align themselves with the district minister without the pastor’s knowledge.  While the pastor sensed that something was wrong in the church, he didn’t think matters were that serious until he was forced to choose between resignation or termination.  After the pastor left the church, he was blamed for whatever problems the church had.

Why was he blamed?  The pastor had left the spiritual community and was no longer around to defend himself.  Some people inside the church exaggerated the number and severity of offenses he had committed and many of those who didn’t know any better believed them.  The leaders who remained in the church were able to spin myths about the pastor that were untrue, but since no one ever checked with the pastor, they assumed the myths were true.  But without realizing it, these people collaborated in trying to destroy the reputation – and any future ministry – of that pastor.

Scapegoating is still alive and well today in churches.  Whenever things go wrong, some choose to blame everything on the pastor.  Let’s blame him for the decline in attendance and offerings.  Let’s blame him for “not feeding me” spiritually.  Let’s blame him for that time he didn’t make the decision I wanted him to make.  Let’s blame him for everything that’s wrong with the church and everything that’s wrong with my spiritual life.

And then, of course, I won’t have to take any responsibility– nor will any of my friends – for anything that goes wrong.  We can just blame the pastor.

Do you see any parallels to what happened to Jesus in The Gospels?  The Pharisees and Sadducees wanted to get rid of Jesus.  They dispersed their talking points, accusing Jesus of blasphemy and desecrating the temple and sedition against Rome.  In fact, those talking points surfaced the night of Jesus’ arrest and the morning of His trial before Pilate.  No one took any responsibility for what happened to Jesus – not Pilate, not the religious leaders, and not the mob that called for Jesus’ execution.  Jesus was scapegoated for everything even though He hadn’t done anything wrong – especially anything worthy of death.  But when some people saw Jesus on the cross, they assumed that He had committed capital crimes because otherwise why would He be up there?  They didn’t know the back story – that humanly speaking, Jesus had been framed on trumped-up charges.

Unlike Jesus, pastors mess up, and sometimes mess up badly.  I’ve made my share of mistakes in ministry, and sometimes those errors haunt me long after I thought they’d disappeared from my mind.  But as important as pastors are – Paul calls them gifts from the risen Christ to His churches in Ephesians 4:11 – they should never be blamed for everything that goes wrong in a congregation or in a believer’s life.  We need to take responsibility for our part when things go wrong as well.

Because when pastors are unfairly scapegoated, Jesus is wounded again.

Read Full Post »

Forced Termination: It Can Happen to Any Pastor

Posted in Change and Conflict in Church, Church Conflict, Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, Personal Stories, tagged , , , on December 9, 2010| Leave a Comment »

When pastors reach a certain stage in their ministries – especially if they’ve been in the same church for many years – it’s easy for them to conclude that they are immune from experiencing a forced exit.  If a pastor survives five years of ministry in the same place, he assumes that most of his critics have left and that those who remain are willing to follow his leadership.  So it comes as a surprise to pastors when they have been in a church for more than five years and yet still have to battle for control of a congregation.

I attended a prominent Christian college, and during my junior year, I took a class in The Gospel of John.  While the class met too early for my taste, the instructor – who was teaching his first class – proved to be a master teacher.  (Had all my teachers been as clear and interesting as he was, I would have emerged from college with straight “A’s.”)  The following year, I invited this instructor to lead a winter retreat for our high school and college students, and his insights into Scripture produced changed lives, including the life of my best friend, who eventually became an influential pastor himself.

Years later, this instructor became the pastor of a well-known mega-church, and it didn’t surprise me one bit.  While attending a seminary near his church for a doctoral program, I jogged over to the church one morning and walked into the worship center.  It was one of the most massive church auditoriums I have ever seen.  I could just imagine my former teacher mesmerizing and motivating the thousands of attendees with his careful and practical expositional skills.

The pastor had a large vision for reaching even more people for Christ.  This meant updating the church’s music, spending more money on the worship services, and recruiting more gifted volunteers and employees.  But the pastor ended up resigning under pressure instead.  According to the local newspaper, a small group of the old guard disagreed with the pastor’s agenda for the church.  The group believed that their seniority in the church entitled them to be consulted about any future plans and when they weren’t, they created havoc behind-the-scenes.  When the pastor resigned, he cited “personal character attacks” and “disrespect for his leadership” from a vocal minority in the church as reasons why he departed.  He had been the senior pastor of that church for fourteen years!

I went through a similar situation a year ago.  I believed that God was calling our church to reach a younger demographic in our spiritually-resistant community.  Rather than make sweeping changes, I wanted to add a third service and transition to a multi-venue format while keeping the two existing worship services largely intact.  This new vision would have required edgier music, additional gifted personnel, and generous funding, but even though most of the staff and the worship planning team were behind it, the governing board was not.  It wasn’t long before I left the church as well.

Let me draw two conclusions from the above stories:

First, pastors must pay a price for spiritual and numerical growth.  I recently heard Andy Stanley say that no one person in a church should stand in the way of a church’s ability to follow Christ’s Great Commission.  And yet when a pastor tries to reach more people, he is often met with resistance, sometimes from staff members, other times from a vocal minority (which has another agenda altogether), and often from the official board.   Sometimes the price paid is that those who are obstructing progress end up leaving the church – and sometimes the price paid is that the pastor ends up being forced to leave as well.  When the pastor has finally gone, people speculate as to why he resigned, wondering if he was guilty of moral failure or poor health or burnout, when the real reason is that the pastor’s agenda for outreach clashed with the agendas of other powerful interests.

Second, every pastor is at risk of a forced exit.  If any pastor is safe from being pressured to leave a church, it’s a founding pastor.  Almost every attendee who comes to such a church comes after the pastor was already there and usually because of the pastor.  But given a determined opposition, almost any pastor can be fired or forced to resign.  A pastor friend once told me that he looked at pastors who went through forced termination as losers – and then it happened to him.  23% of all pastors have been forced out of church ministry at least once.  While a distinct minority of pastors shouldn’t be in any kind of ministry, many great pastors find themselves in the wrong situation with the wrong group at the wrong time and end up losing their positions and even their careers.  While this scenario may be a fact of church life, it brings needless heartache to everyone involved.

Thankfully, the instructor I mentioned at the beginning of the article has become the co-pastor of a church.  The other co-pastor was also the pastor of a mega-church and he, too, was forced out of his position due to false accusations and denominational pressure.  God’s will was assuredly done in permitting both men to leave their churches and band together in their new setting, but the way they were forced out was diabolical.

If you’re in a church where the pastor is under fire, let me ask you one question:

What will you do to make sure that your pastor isn’t unfairly forced from his position?

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts