Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Church Health and Conflict’ Category

Staying Out of Triangles

Posted in Church Conflict, Church Health and Conflict, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, tagged , , on September 26, 2012| 2 Comments »

You’re not getting along with a co-worker.

Or a family member.

Or a classmate at school.

Or a neighbor with a barking dog.

At first, you try to smile and be nice and find a pathway to commonality, but your efforts fail … and your problems with the co-worker … family member … classmate … or neighbor just get worse.

What do people do when they try to get along with someone but can’t pull it off?

Too often … they triangle another person into their dispute.

They take their anxiety and look for a third party … and then dump their issues onto that person … hoping the third party will resolve matters for them.

Examples:

*A wife is not getting along with her husband, so she seeks out a third party … her mother, a friend, her pastor, a counselor … whom she hopes will solve the conflict for her.

*A mother is tearing her hair out over the behavior of her teenage daughter … so mom waits her until her husband comes home from work and then hands the problem over to him.

*An employee is going berserk trying to work with his immediate supervisor who is constantly bullying him … so he goes to human resources to learn about his options.

*A small faction in a church is upset with their pastor … so they telephone the district minister to complain about him.

It feels natural to “triangle” a party you’re not getting along with … if you’re three years old and your older brother Johnny is trying to glue your Luke Skywalker action figure to your best outfit.  (“Mom!  Help me!  Johnny’s doing it again!”)

But as you mature, you’re supposed to be able to handle most conflicts with others yourself.

If you consult with someone on how to handle a conflict, that isn’t necessarily triangling … as long as you’re just seeking advice on how to handle a relational problem person.

But it is triangling when you want the other person to take the problem away from you and solve it.

In Luke 12:13, a man came up to Jesus and said, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”

This man and his brother were not in agreement about their inheritance, so this man asked Jesus to solve the problem for him.

He didn’t ask Jesus for advice or for options … he asked Jesus to tell his brother to split the family money with him.

Jesus refused to take the bait, replying, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?”  While everyone knew that Jesus was a wise man, He did not have jurisdiction in the field of family finance, so he declined the man’s demand.

In other words, Jesus chose not to form a triangle against the second brother by siding with the first.

Churches are breeding grounds for triangles, and the person who gets “triangled” the most is the pastor.

Example:

A woman in the church is upset with her pastor for not asking her to be a deaconess.  She doesn’t want to talk to her pastor directly, so she complains to her friends about him … adding a lot of colorful details about other times that he’s angered her.

There are two basic ways her friends can reply.

First, her friends can tell her, “We’ll pray for you, but we cannot do anything about your problem with the pastor.  You need to set up an appointment and go talk to him yourself.  We’re staying out of it.”

In other words, this woman’s friends refuse to solve the problem for her by forming a triangle against the pastor.  They put the responsibility for reconciliation back onto her shoulders.

Second, her friends can tell her, “You know, we’re upset with the pastor, too.  In fact, do you know what he said to me a few weeks ago?”  And then everyone can pool their gripes against the pastor.

Suddenly, the gripe poolers have formed an alliance … with the pastor as their enemy.

This is how church division starts.  People carry the offenses of others as if those offenses are their own.

It often starts with one person who is upset with the pastor about a personal offense who never tells the pastor how they feel.  Then they attempt to gain allies so that others carry their offenses for them.

Today’s lesson on church conflict is simple: STAY OUT OF TRIANGLES!

If somebody tries to consult with you about a problem they’re having with someone at church, it’s okay to share advice with them but don’t even hint to solve the problem for them.

The monkey needs to stay on their back because it’s their problem.

Don’t say, “I’ll try talking to him for you.”

Don’t say, “I’ll go to the board and get their advice.”

Don’t say, “Tell me more!”

However you say it … whatever you say … communicate loud and clear:

“THIS IS YOUR PROBLEM, AND YOU WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT … NOT ME.”

I’ll write more about triangles next time.

Read Full Post »

More Congregational Feedback Ideas

Posted in Church Conflict, Church Health and Conflict, Conflict with the Pastor, tagged , , on September 24, 2012| Leave a Comment »

If it wasn’t for congregational feedback, we might not possess one of the most valuable books in the entire Bible.

When he wrote 1 Corinthians, the apostle Paul was responding to a series of questions posed by the church in Corinth about issues such as marriage and divorce, whether singles should marry, food sacrificed to idols, whether preachers should be paid, freedom in Christ, spiritual gifts, and resurrection.

Their feedback to Paul resulted in long, extended answers to questions that encompass the second half of the book.

Congregational feedback can be valuable … as long as it doesn’t become adversarial.

I’ve already saluted a structured, anonymous survey and emailing the pastor as viable feedback options in my last blog.

Let me mention four more.

First, I believe a pastor should stand before a congregation and answer questions at least annually, if not more often.

When a church calls a new pastor, they often have a question and answer session with him.  These times are valuable because they indicate how a pastor relates to the entire congregation … how well he can think on his feet … what kind of vision and ideas he has for a prospective church … and the current mindset of churchgoers.

Why do pastoral candidates go through that kind of a process … and then never stand before the church again?

Some might say, “Such meetings can become divisive.”  And I agree – they can be.

But isn’t it better for a pastor to call such a meeting proactively with the congregation than to have some in the congregation call a meeting about him later on?

Political candidates stand before crowds hundreds of times when they’re running for office.  Once in office, we rightly criticize them if they duck press conferences and town hall meetings.

The feedback generated during such meetings can enlighten and encourage everyone involved.

I realize some pastors aren’t skilled at such meetings … and some members aren’t skilled at speaking in front of groups.

In that case, why not ask churchgoers to write out their questions in advance and then have the pastor answer them the following Sunday?  (Giving him a week to think about his answers.)

However it’s done, I believe this kind of give-and-take needs to be done more often.

By the way, I loved these kinds of meetings, even on those rare occasions when the questioner became angry.  Some big-name pastors hold them on a regular basis.  I’m even aware of a megachurch where a world-renowned pastor holds these meetings periodically.  Keeps leadership accountable.

Second, I believe a pastor can visit various groups in the church for question and answer sessions.

In my second pastorate, I neglected the seniors in the church for a while, and they rebelled, with many of them leaving the church en masse.

Since that painful episode, I have learned that a pastor must touch every major group in a church throughout the year: the kids, the youth, the singles, small groups, seniors … you name it.

This isn’t hard to pull off.  When a pastor is making his annual calendar, he can make sure to schedule quality time … maybe with one group every month … where he can meet with them and take questions.

Early in my pastoral ministry, I met with the deaconesses of my church and tried to give them a vision of what they could become.

They didn’t want to hear such a vision from a man … and they let me know it.

It was the last time I ever invaded a woman’s meeting without being asked to attend.

But on occasion, I was asked to speak to the women of the church … and that’s a great opportunity for feedback … provided the pastor doesn’t tell the deaconesses how to run their operation.

Third, I believe a pastor should solicit questions on occasion about certain issues that touch people’s lives.

If I was preaching topically, I’d end a series maybe once a year by asking people to submit written questions about the issue at hand.

For example, if I was preaching on marriage, I’d let everyone know throughout the series that they could write down questions about marriage on their response card.  Then I’d sort through them all and look for patterns and themes.

Then I’d let those questions provide the outline and frame my message for the last Sunday of the series.

Frontal lobe issues are best for this kind of thing … relationships, personal finances, raising kids, apologetics questions, social issues … even Bible questions.

Years ago, I read that R.T. Kendall, who pastored for many years at Westminster Chapel in London, would take questions from the congregation after he taught.  He arranged for microphones to be set up in the aisles and listeners could ask him anything about the message he just gave.

I love this approach because it’s akin to how Jesus and Paul taught at times … and people usually learn more through dialogue than a prepared monologue.

Besides, it’s much less predictable … and has the potential for both fireworks and fun.

Finally, I believe that churchgoers should set up an appointment to speak with their pastor if they have an idea or a concern.

Most pastors … even in large churches … make provision for seeing people from the congregation at least once.  It may take a few weeks to land an appointment, but they can be landed.  (And if not with the senior/lead pastor, at least with an executive pastor.)

Whenever people made such appointments with me, I was usually nervous ahead of time because I had no idea what they were going to talk about … and sometimes, they came in great anger.

For this reason, I almost always tried to figure out why they were coming to see me … and usually got it wrong.

But a one-on-one session is really the best way to share feedback with somebody.

You can see their eyes … and their body language … and their facial expressions … and they can see yours as well.

I once read that the average American citizen could see Abraham Lincoln when he was president.

Certainly Jesus did one-on-ones with people like Nicodemus.

Every pastor should welcome this kind of feedback, even if he can’t make everybody happy.

I hope these ideas are helpful.

If a church has structured feedback, churchgoers won’t be as likely to ambush the pastor or staff with their concerns.

Your thoughts?

Read Full Post »

Feedback Mechanisms for Pastors

Posted in Church Conflict, Church Health and Conflict, tagged , on September 19, 2012| 2 Comments »

Many years ago, I did something really stupid.

(I did something stupid yesterday, too, but let’s ignore that.)

Someone tried to convince me to show a music video during a Sunday service.

I liked the video … and the group that did the video … and the song they sang.

But the first time I saw the video was during the service … and the video just wasn’t appropriate for our congregation at the time.

And I heard about it … and handled the reaction that came my way rather poorly.

When pastors get together, they sometimes share war stories about the complainers and critics inside their churches.

Many times, the pastor doesn’t deserve the critcism he’s receiving … but sometimes, he does.

And many … if not most … pastors haven’t created feedback mechanisms for attendees when they’re unhappy about something.

I once knew an older gentleman who would stop and see me in my office about once a year.  Whenever he stopped in, he had one or two “suggestions” he wanted to share with me.  And they were always good ideas.

But if he didn’t have the courage to approach me directly … and many, many churchgoers are too afraid to speak with their pastor about anything remotely negative … I wouldn’t have benefited from his observations.

What kind of feedback mechanisms can pastors use to solicit congregational feedback?

First, I believe that every pastor should take an open-ended survey of the congregation on an annual basis.

A pastor would ask five or so questions that demand more than a “yes” or “no” answer.  For example:

*Why do you come to this church?

*What do you like best about the church?

*In which specific ways can we improve?

*What can we do to attract more guests?

*If you could wave a wand and get rid of one thing, what would it be?

I’m not suggesting that these are the actual questions to be asked … they’re just samples.  Every pastor needs to devise his own.

But this kind of a process makes the following statements:

*This church isn’t perfect.

*We value your input.

*We believe that you notice things we don’t see.

*We put a premium on constructive feedback.

*We take your ideas seriously.

To really be effective, this kind of survey has to be conducted during a weekend service … maybe at the very end, so people can finish their surveys and then leave.

But if church attendees knew that every year … maybe at the beginning of fall … they would be asked to share some opinions about the church, wouldn’t that be a great place to channel their ideas?

In this case, I think it’s okay to ask people to fill them out anonymously unless the person filling out the survey wants to expand upon their suggestion.  In that case, they can give their name and email/phone.

Second, I believe that churchgoers should feel comfortable emailing their pastor about their feelings and ideas.

I’m more of a visual guy than an auditory one.  Many things that people tell me go in one ear and out the other … as my wife can attest all too well.

If I can read an idea, I’m far more likely to remember it than if I just hear it.

For that reason, I’m not too receptive to people coming up to me after a service and hitting me with a complaint or a suggestion.  I’d prefer they put it in writing so I can understand what they’re trying to say more accurately.

Maybe this is just me, but I’d rather have someone email me their suggestion on a Monday morning than talk to me after a weekend service … and I suspect that many pastors would agree with me.

Whenever people gave me feedback via email, I tried to get back to them within 24 hours … and I always thanked them for contacting me directly … even if I didn’t like what they said.

I’ll share some more feedback mechanisms next time.

Which feedback mechanisms do you believe work in congregations today?

Read Full Post »

“Lord, I Don’t Want to be a Prophet!”

Posted in Church Conflict, Church Health and Conflict, Conflict with the Pastor, Fighting Evil, Pastoral Termination, Personal Stories, Please Comment!, tagged , , , on August 22, 2012| 15 Comments »

I have a spiritual gift I wish I didn’t have.

The gift of prophecy.

I wish the Lord had given me the gift of exhortation, or giving, or healing instead.  But I wasn’t consulted in the matter, because the Lord distributes the gifts as He wills (1 Cor. 12:11, 18).

I’ve taken many spiritual gift tests … and asked others to take those same tests with me in mind.  In fact, I took a class called “Discerning Your Ministry Identity” for my doctoral program, and the results always come out the same.

Teaching is my top gift.  Prophecy is second.

I can’t foretell the future, so please don’t ask me who’s going to win the World Series or the election in November!

But I do sense the freedom to speak openly and candidly about cultural and personal issues from a biblical standpoint.

Here’s how this gift – featured in 1 Corinthians 14 – manifests itself in the life of a modern-day prophet:

First, prophets are drawn to controversy.  I first discovered this at age 19.  When I taught publicly, I wanted to talk about issues that others wouldn’t talk about.

Stephen Brown, author, pastor, and radio preacher, lived by this motto whenever he preached:

WHEN IN DOUBT, SAY IT.

Brown believed that whenever a pastor said something unplanned, those words would be more memorable and impactful to a congregation.

Maybe so … maybe not.

Some of the best things I’ve ever said … and some of the stupidest … occurred when I practiced that motto.

But like the prophets of old, sometimes I have to say things … because God’s word is like a fire in my bones.

Second, prophets feel free to talk about any subject.

Over the years, while having conversations with pastor friends, I’ve discovered that many of them are uncomfortable talking about certain issues from the pulpit.

Examples?

Giving to God’s work.  Sex … even inside marriage.  Homosexuality.  Couples who live together outside marriage.  Hell.  The wrath of God.  Intelligent design and creationism.

And you don’t know how many times I wanted to wade into politics … but didn’t.

But a pastor with the gift of prophecy says to himself, “If I don’t speak about these issues from Scripture, how will people know God’s mind on these topics?”

This is why I’m drawn to people who do talk about these issues.

It’s why I thought the late Chuck Colson was the best Christian speaker I’ve ever heard.  When the Jim Bakker scandal broke in the late 1980s, I heard Colson publicly critique the prosperity gospel in a biblical, succinct, and devastating way.  He was a modern-day prophet.

It’s why I’ve appreciated Bill Hybels’ ministry over the years.  I used to become quite upset when Christians would criticize Hybels for watering down the gospel because I never found it to be true.  He gave the best messages I’ve ever heard on substitutionary atonement … and hell … and abortion … and homosexuality … and he never pulled punches in the process.

I’m currently writing and talking about the devastating effects that the forced termination of pastors has on Christians,  churches, and pastors and their families.  This is not a topic most believers want to hear about, but this problem is becoming an epidemic in our country … and people are leaving their churches … and even their faith … because of the way these situations are being handled in local churches.

Someone has to speak up … and pray that God’s people will pay attention.

As a wise man once told me, some practices inside Christian churches can only be changed by people who are angry enough to speak out.

Third, the prophetic gift can go against one’s personality.

My two favorite Bible characters are Jeremiah and Timothy.

They both shrank from their calls to ministry.

They both felt unsuccessful.

They both felt like quitting at times.

And they were both sensitive men.

God took a sensitive man like Jeremiah … called him to be a prophet … told him in advance that his ministry would fail … and then insured that he was always alone!

That’s how it feels at time to have this gift.

If God gives someone the gift of prophecy, shouldn’t He give it to a person with an iron will and nerves of steel?

But sometimes He gives this gift to a person with a tender, bleeding heart.

You feel like a spiritual schizophrenic.

Prophets may feel fear before they speak … but they go out and speak anyway … with the authority of God Almighty behind them.  As Paul said to the church at Corinth: “I came to you in weakness and fear, and much trembling” (1 Cor. 2:3).

But he still preached Christ to them … in the power of God’s Spirit.

Finally, prophets always pay a price when they use their gift.

Some prophets are abrasive and obnoxious when they exercise their gift.  Keith Green … whose music I love … believed God had given him the prophetic gift, but he had a habit of slamming people when he used it.  Before he died, he apologized for the way he used his gift.

Prophets are free to speak the mind of God to the people of God … they just have to do it in love.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:2, “If I have the gift of prophecy … but have not love, I am nothing.”

Four years ago, the state of California was getting ready to vote on the definition of marriage … that marriage was between one man and one woman.

I have pastor friends who chose not to speak on that topic, stating that they weren’t going to change anybody’s mind about it.

But I believed … and still do … that we preachers had the opportunity to clearly delineate what God’s Word says on this issue.  But as Paul says about prophecy, we needed to do it for people’s “strengthening, encouragement and comfort” (1 Cor. 14:3).

So I talked on “Defending Biblical Marriage.”  Gay marriage proponents loudly proclaim their position … and if we Christians are silent, don’t they win the argument by default?

When I gave the message, I knew some people would applaud me … some would attack me … and some would abandon me.

But I had to do it … and would do it again in a heartbeat … even though I believe that message angered the enemy … and that he gradually began to cause damage from that moment on.

The church of Jesus needs prophets who proclaim the whole counsel of God.

And when they do, we need to pray for them, encourage them, and stand behind them … even when they say something that others don’t like … or even we don’t like.

The alternative is for the church of Jesus Christ to be biblically illiterate, culturally irrelevant, and spiritually impotent.

I am not the body.  You are not the body.

I need your gifts … and you need mine.

Even the gift of prophecy.

Follow the way of love, and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.  1 Corinthians 14:1

Read Full Post »

Preaching Ethically

Posted in Church Health and Conflict, Conflict with the Pastor, Current Church Issues, Please Comment!, tagged , , , , on August 20, 2012| 8 Comments »

I recently attended a church service where the pastor engaged in questionable ethics while preaching.  While the congregation seemed to love what he was saying, I felt that he was manipulating them so they would give him the response that he desired.

Having heard … and given … hundreds of sermons in my lifetime, let me share with you four principles for evaluating the ethics of a sermon:

First, the pastor needs to be honest with the biblical text.

When a pastor practices exegesis, he’s taking out truth that God placed in Scripture.  But when a pastor practices eisegesis, he’s putting into the text his own thoughts and ideas … acting like his ideas are better than God’s.

I heard a message a few years ago that I thought was fabulous.  The preacher spoke from James 3:1-12 on taming the tongue.  He dealt with every key phrase in the passage in a way we could all understand.

The message was so good I wondered if I should ever preach again.

But some pastors leapfrog the tough phrases … step around sentences with difficult syntax … and avoid all the tough stuff.  When they read Scripture out loud, it’s unedited … but when they preach it, it’s edited.

Why?

Maybe they don’t understand the text they’re studying … or they can’t translate biblical ideas into contemporary language … or they don’t think certain ideas will resonate with their hearers.

When I was a youth pastor and still learning to preach, I chose a text for a sermon.  When I started studying the passage, I discovered it wasn’t saying what I thought it said … and I had little time left to shift gears.  As I recall, the sermon bombed … but I could not in all good conscience twist Scripture to fit my preconceived ideas.

Ask yourself: is my pastor teaching what God’s Word really says … or what he wants it to say?

Second, the pastor needs to preach the entirety of Scripture.

When I was ordained, I was charged with preaching “the whole counsel of God.”  The phrase comes from Paul’s words to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:27.

Paul told his friends, “While I was with you, I never held back the Word of God” (NIV).  The phrase is usually taken to mean, “Preach everything that’s in the Bible … whether popular or unpopular.”

If a pastor is truly called by God to preach the whole counsel of God, that pastor will eventually have to preach on controversial issues like homosexual conduct … racism … loving money … capital punishment … gay marriage … substance abuse … hell … child abuse … the role of women in the church … and even political issues.

Here’s why: the Bible speaks to most of these issues, either through direct commands or general principles.  If a pastor teaches what Scripture says about these issues, then his people can penetrate the culture with biblical arguments.  But if the pastor fails to teach what Scripture says, then his people may adopt the mindset of the culture by default.

If a pastor routinely sidesteps controversial issues to avoid conflict inside his church, he’ll cultivate a congregation that’s biblically ignorant and cannot intellligently converse with those outside the church.

Ask yourself: is my pastor dealing with tough issues biblically, or is he sidestepping controversy to be popular?

Third, the pastor must give credit for materials he’s borrowed from others.

I once heard a pastor do a long series on an issue he knew little about … and the more I heard him preach, the more convinced I was that he was “borrowing” his information from another source.

In fact, I was pretty sure I knew who that source was.

My dilemma: if I did the research, and found out my hunch was right, what was I supposed to do with that information?  Confront the pastor?  Take it to the board?

In my case, I decided not to do the research … but plagiarism is a serious matter, especially in Christian circles.

It is unethical for a pastor to take someone else’s quotation … or story … or sermon … and pass it off as his own without acknowledging his source.

In fact, it’s not just borrowing … it’s stealing.

I once used an outline on unanswered prayer that I kept from Dr. Curtis Mitchell from Biola … but when I preached a sermon on that topic, I told the congregation that I was using his outline but that the sermon content was my own.

Whenever I used a story I got from someone else, I would say, “Rick Warren tells the story …” or “That story from R. C. Sproul illustrates the point that …”

When a pastor stands before a congregation, they have the right to expect that their pastor interacted with God and His Word the previous week … and that he didn’t “buy” a sermon from a website for $15 and act like it was his.

Ask yourself: does my pastor give credit to others for ideas, or does he act like they’re all his own?

Finally, the pastor should never manipulate people into doing what he wants.

I know someone who attended a church where the pastor tried to persuade people to attend church services … and would use anger to get his way.

He would say, “If you don’t come to the Sunday night service, I hope your TV blows up.”  (And he would say it often.)

Maybe he was just kidding … or maybe he really meant it.

I learned early in my preaching ministry that “going to the whip” only works once.  A pastor can “guilt” people … or shame them … or threaten them … but most people see through it … especially when a pastor tries to manipulate people into attending services more often or donating more money.

If your pastor does this, here’s how to put a stop to it:

Ask him kindly to show you the verse in the Bible where Jesus or Paul or the apostles use guilt and threaten people if they don’t come to church or give more money.

Of course … the verse isn’t there.

Many pastors use these tactics because they unconsciously seek to control people’s behavior … but it shows an appalling lack of confidence in the Holy Spirit.

I once served under a pastor whose ministry was not going well.  One Sunday, he told the congregation, “The Lord told me that someone is going to respond to the invitation today.”

We sang 12 verses of “Just As I Am,” and no one came forward.

I can’t see hearts, but I suspect that the congregation was being manipulated that Sunday.

Ask yourself: does my pastor tend to manipulate or motivate people with his words?

Let me make one final statement:

If a pastor has been called to teach Scripture … and he trusts the Holy Spirit to use him … and he’s walking with God … and he has prayerfully studied God’s Word before preaching … THERE IS NO REASON TO USE FLESHLY METHODS TO ILLICIT A RESPONSE FROM GOD’S PEOPLE.

In fact, the desire for a visible response may be more about satisfying a pastor’s ego than anything else.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the ethics of preaching.

Read Full Post »

Beware the Rightists Among Us

Posted in Change and Conflict in Church, Church Conflict, Church Health and Conflict, Conflict with Church Antagonists, tagged , , , on August 17, 2012| Leave a Comment »

I got lectured yesterday by a man three times younger than me.

My wife and I took a leisurely drive toward the ocean.  We followed the signs to the harbor, when suddenly, I didn’t know whether to turn left or right.  I turned right … and was headed straight toward a military installation.

Oh, man … I didn’t want to endure the guard at the gate giving me the third degree.  Since no cars were around, I tried to make a U-turn, figuring the guard wasn’t going to send Uncle Sam’s finest after me.

But my wife said, “He’s waving you on.”  So I stopped my turn and drove toward the gate instead.

But when I got there, a young man in uniform asked me if I had a driver’s license and knew what the double yellow lines in the road signified.

He told me that I could have gotten in a serious accident and that people could have been killed. (Going 10 mph?)

He verbally dressed me down.

I just looked at him and smiled the whole time.  What else could I have done?

With cars stacking up behind me, he let me go.  I finally drove ahead, turned around, and peeled rubber leaving the installation.

Just kidding!

But that soldier … just doing his duty, mind you … reminded me of some Christians I have known.

These believers are, in the words of a Christian leader I once knew, rightists.

A rightist is a person who believes there is only one right way to do things … and they always do everything right.

And it’s their duty to tell you when you’re doing things wrong.

How can you spot a rightist?

First, the rightist lacks a breadth of experience in church life.

One rightist I knew was always telling me how ministry was carried out in his previous church.  He would preface his remarks by saying, “At _____ Church, we always did things this way.”

He said this dozens of times.  At first, I told him, “Feel free to share your ministry experiences with me.”  But after a while, I asked him to stop sharing because he never seemed to like the way our church did anything.

(As Rick Warren once told someone, “If you like that church so much, why don’t you go back to it?”)

But this leader kept it up.  He couldn’t help himself.

And when I didn’t want to hear it anymore, he went underground and continued to tell others the right way to do church.

Know how many different churches this leader had attended before ours?

That’s right: one.

The more churches you’ve attended … the more churches you’ve visited … the more churches you’ve read about … the less likely that you’ll become a rightist.

Second, the rightist canonizes methodology.

The rightist believes that he has thought through most church practices and that his way is always the best way.

In fact, he acts like his methods are divinely approved while yours do not count.

Take music, for instance.

When Bob Dylan came to Christ in the late 1970s, it was huge news.  The greatest popular songwriter of our day – who was Jewish to boot – had embraced Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.  (As enigmatic as Dylan’s lyrics can be, he still incorporates an amazing amount of biblical imagery in his songs.)

I remember discussing Dylan’s conversion with a leader in my church at that time over dinner.  The leader remained unimpressed.  I quoted the chorus of Dylan’s song “Gotta Serve Somebody” to him: “It may be the devil, or it may be the Lord, but you gotta serve somebody.”  (Chuck Smith from Calvary Chapel loved the song.)

The leader told me, “I’ve heard the song, but it still has that beat.”  (I wanted to say, “That’s the point!”)  But this leader embraced the teachings of Christian guru Bill Gothard, who had biblical proof that any beat in a song was wrong.

(By the way, Dylan had the guts to sing “Gotta Serve Somebody” both on Saturday Night Live and on the Grammy Awards … and won his first Grammy for the song.)

I had a conversation recently with a professional musician who is also a pastor.  (No, it wasn’t Jimmy Swaggart.)  He told me there are only two kinds of music: good music and bad music.

I happen to agree with him.  Some secular music is excellent … and some Christian music just doesn’t cut it.  (Carmen, anyone?)

Can’t Christians have broader categories for music than secular and spiritual?

(By the way, Christian journalist Cal Thomas became great friends with the late composer Marvin Hamlisch and wrote this tribute to his friend in World magazine.  It’s worth reading: http://online.worldmag.com/2012/08/08/one-singular-sensation/

Finally, the rightist judges others not by biblical absolutes but by his/her own preferences.

When I was in my teens, the youth wanted to have their Sunday night youth group meeting in a home one year.  They were expected to stay on the church campus for four other meetings every week and wanted to enjoy the relaxed atmosphere of someone’s living room.

Our church called a public meeting to discuss this issue … and the church secretary – who insisted the youth meet on the church campus – became so irate that she walked down the aisle toward the back of the church, slammed the door … and was never heard from again.

It was fine for her to express her opinion.  But when she couldn’t have her way, she stomped out of the meeting and left the church for good.

She acted like a rightist.

Jesus had to contend with the rightists of His day: the Pharisees.

They emphasized external compliance rather than inward obedience.

They emphasized the minutae of the Law rather than its broader aims (love God … love others).

They demanded that people conform to their behavioral codes (which were plentiful and super-strict) rather than God’s.

Jesus once said the following about the Pharisees to the crowds/His disciples in Matthew 23:4:

“They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulder’s, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”

The Pharisees were bureaucrats … bean counters … self-appointed critics … and fun stoppers.

Jesus once said, “Do not be like them.”

I served for many years with a Christian leader named Wendell.  Several weeks ago, the Lord called him home.

Wendell used to say to me, “Don’t play the Holy Spirit in someone’s life.”

Resist the rightists among you … and resist becoming a rightist yourself.

Because rightists are dead wrong.

Read Full Post »

Is There Only One Way to Do Church?

Posted in Change and Conflict in Church, Church Conflict, Church Health and Conflict, tagged , , on August 13, 2012| 2 Comments »

When do you open your Christmas presents … on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day?

I once asked a congregation this question.  The overwhelming response was that people opened their presents on Christmas morning.

My wife and kids opened our presents on Christmas Eve.

I don’t know why we did it that way.  Maybe it was our reward for attending two services on Christmas Eve … or our kids clamored for opening “just one more present” and we parents gave in … or we just felt like breaking tradition.

Most likely, the truth is that my wife likes to stay up late and sleep in the following morning … and how many kids are able to wait until past noon on Christmas to open their gifts?

You may think my family is weird, or unconventional, or even a wee bit impatient … but is it wrong for a family to open its gifts on Christmas Eve?

It’s not wrong … it’s just our preference.

The reason I bring this up is because way too many Christians still believe there is only one way to do church, and if church isn’t done their way, they complain and protest and scream … and eventually launch major conflict.

For them, everything is either black or white … or right or wrong.

Let me share an example.

When I was a kid, most worship services on Sundays started at 11 am … and many people expected that the pastor would quit preaching by noon.  If the pastor was still preaching at 12:01, some people became angry … and if he went until 12:10, they hit the roof.

We only become angry when we feel we’ve been violated.  In other words, every person who became angry when the pastor preached past noon believed he was wrong for doing so.

But where did that idea come from?  The Bible is silent on the beginning and ending times for worship.  (In fact, you can’t find even one instance in the New Testament of a Sunday morning worship service.)  Unless a church’s governing documents specify that services will dismiss by noon … and I’ve never heard of such a thing … it’s not wrong for a pastor to preach past noon.

It may go against local culture, or that gnawing feeling in one’s belly, but it’s not wrong.

(Some pastors solved this problem by moving their service time to 10:30 or 10:45 so they always got out by noon.)

Here’s another example:

Many of us grew up in churches that used only two instruments: a piano and an organ.

From infancy through my late twenties, every church I attended had those two instruments.

Modern rock instruments like guitars, bass, and drums were not permitted … only a piano and an organ.

The worship wars that were fought in churches in the seventies and eighties revolved around not only music style (hymns vs. praise music), but also musical instruments (piano/organ vs. guitars/drums).

Is it wrong for a church to have a piano and organ?  Of course not.

Is it wrong for a church to have guitars and drums?  Of course not.  (Did you know that the very first and very last musical instruments mentioned in the Bible – in Genesis 4 and Revelation 15 – can both be translated “guitar?”)

Then why did so many people act like the presence of those instruments in church was wrong?

It simply wasn’t their preference.

Here’s my point: many … if not most … church conflicts are really about preferences rather than absolutes.

The conflicts are about “what I like and don’t like” rather than “what God commands or doesn’t command.”

Here are some more examples:

*Should a church list its order of service in the bulletin/program or not?

*How many praise and worship songs should a church do in a service?  2?  4?  7?

*How long should a pastor preach?  20 minutes?  30?  45?

*How loud should the drums be?

*Should the worship center temperature be on the cold side or the warm side?

*How involved should women be in a worship service?

*How should a pastor dress when he preaches?  In a suit and tie?  In a coat without a tie?  In dress pants or jeans?

*How many times should a public prayer be offered in a Sunday service?  2 times?  3?  5?  10?

*During communion, must the congregation be silent?  Can music play in the background?  Can people sing?

*Should a pastor greet people at the door after a service, or stay up front to pray with people?

*Should a church use name tags … and if so, should everyone be asked to wear one?

*Should the pastor project Scripture references onto a screen or expect that people will bring their Bibles?

*Should adults have Sunday School as opposed to small groups?

*Should adults have Sunday School in addition to small groups?

*When the youth go to camp, should they go on a bus or in cars?

*Should church leaders promote and attend every meeting/event in their district and denomination?

Believe it or not, I have experienced minor or major conflict concerning every issue I’ve listed above.

I have been criticized, condemned, and vilified because my preference in one of these areas clashed with the preference of someone else.

People became angry with me … and complained to their friends … and wrote me critical notes … and threatened to leave the church … not because I had violated Scripture, but because they didn’t like what I was doing.

I visited a church a while back where a musician on stage wore a nose ring and was covered with tattoos.

It was hard for me to look at him.  I can take an earring … and long hair … and even bare feet … but a nose ring makes me feel ill.  I can’t help it … I have a visceral reaction to it.

Was it wrong for the pastor to allow that musician on the stage?

Not at all.  And if I chose to attend that church, I would never tell the pastor, “Get rid of the guy with the nose ring or I’ll leave.”  For all I know, it’s a new convert … or the pastor’s son … or the boyfriend of the pastor’s daughter!

There is only one way to God, and that’s through Jesus Christ … but there are many ways to bring people to Jesus.

So the next time you’re upset about something at your church, ask yourself:

Is this a violation of Scripture?  (In which case it’s an absolute.)

Or … is this just something I don’t like?  (In which case it’s a preference.)

I’ll write more on this topic next time.

Your thoughts?

Read Full Post »

Selecting a Church’s Governing Leaders, Part 1

Posted in Church Health and Conflict, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with the Pastor, Please Comment!, tagged , on August 6, 2012| 2 Comments »

A pastor friend recently asked if I would post something about how to select a church’s governing leaders.  Whether they’re called elders, overseers, deacons, the church council, or the board of directors, what’s the best way to choose such leaders?

While I don’t consider myself an expert in this area … like most pastors, I’ve made some mistakes in selecting leaders … let me offer three suggestions (each post this week will cover one suggestion):

First, choose people whose lives reflect the biblical qualifications.  Paul instructed both Timothy (1 Timothy 3:1-13) and Titus (Titus 1:5-9) to look for certain character and behavioral qualities in church leaders.  Some thoughts:

*Scripture isn’t dealing with a person’s history but with their lifestyle.  When Paul lists “not given to drunkenness,” is he saying that if a person got drunk once, that person should never be a church leader?  When he says “not a lover of money,” is Paul referring to someone’s overall life pattern or elimininating someone from consideration because they did love money for a time?

There are obviously some one-time incidents that would eliminate a person from consideration (murder comes to mind), but we must also leave room for the grace of God.

I once knew a man who was divorced early in life.  He was the most well-respected man in our entire church – he preached, did counseling, taught an adult class, shared his faith freely – but some people refused to let him become a governing leader because he was divorced (as a believer) soon after his first marriage.  They believed he violated the qualification of being “the husband of but one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2).  However, he married a fine Christian woman after his divorce and they had an exemplary marriage for several decades.  Did he meet the biblical qualification?  I believe he did.  Others would disagree.

*Scripture encourages us to look for people who can manage their own lives.  Someone once asked about former Yankee baseball manager Billy Martin, “How can he manage a team of 25 men when he can’t manage his own life?”

In looking for spiritual leaders, we need to look for people who can manage their money, their temper, their alcohol, and their tongue.  If they can manage themselves, then we want to know if they can manage their family (1 Timothy 3:4-5).  If they can manage both themselves and their family, they stand the best chance of managing their church.

*Scripture encourages us to look for people whose lives have been consistent over time.  In 1 Timothy 3:10, Paul says of deacons (and the same principle applies to elders/overseers), “They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.”

In general, I only asked someone to serve as a governing leader if I had been able to observe their life for at least two years.  That made their behavior predictable … though not necessarily perfect.  A church’s governing leaders are sometimes under stress … maybe they have to deal with a wayward staff member, or declining offerings, or a case of sexual immorality … and you’d like to know ahead of time how they’re going to handle tough situations.

This is why I wanted all potential governing leaders to serve in a leadership position somewhere in the church before I considered them for the governing board.  If they hadn’t served as a leader first … and then they became a governing leader … how could I predict their behavior on the board?  I couldn’t.

Sadly, some people are exemplary believers in non-leadership positions … but they become tyrants when they become leaders.  The only way I know to minimize this risk is to make sure everyone serves as a non-board leader before they’re ever considered to become a governing leader.

*Scripture encourages us to know something about the spouses of leaders as well.  Bible scholars are divided as to whether 1 Timothy 3:11 refers to deaconesses or deacon’s wives.  Let’s assume for the moment that Paul is discussing the wife of a governing leader (whatever applies to deacons also applies to overseers/elders).

The wives of leaders need to be “worthy of respect, not malicious talkers, but temperate, and trustworthy in everything.”

It is possible for a man to be perfectly suited to become a governing leader … but to be disqualified because of his wife.  The problem?  She can’t keep a secret.

I’ve had governing leaders tell me, “I never tell my wife a thing about what’s going on in the church.”  However, I had one leader tell me, “I tell my wife everything that’s going on in the church” … and I’ve served with leaders whom I suspected told their wives plenty if not everything.

I do not believe that everything discussed by a church board should remain confidential.  That’s ridiculous.  The governing leaders make all kinds of decisions, and most of them can/will be shared openly with the congregation.  I believe that a church with transparency is far healthier than a church full of secrets … especially concerning issues and policies.

But when governing leaders meet, they also discuss people in the church … by name … and those discussions need to be kept confidential.  As a pastor, I was willing to discuss anything and everything at the church except what was going on in the lives of individuals … unless it was already public knowledge.

In other words, we need to be open about the institution of the church but be protective of the individuals in that same church.

Any thoughts about what I’ve written?

Read Full Post »

Fingering Church Powerbrokers

Posted in Church Conflict, Church Health and Conflict, Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with the Pastor, Fighting Evil, Jim's Ten Favorite Articles on June 11, 2012| Leave a Comment »

My pastor was under attack.

He couldn’t sleep.  He couldn’t study.  His personality turned inward.

He was a wreck.

Why?

Years ago, in my third church staff position, a small group of vocal members began to criticize the church’s pastor … who was also my supervisor.

Their main claim?  That he didn’t preach often enough, an indication that he was lazy.

35 years ago, many Protestant churches had:

*Sunday School

*Sunday morning worship

*Sunday evening service (with youth group meetings before or after)

*Wednesday night prayer meeting

That’s a lot of teaching time to fill!

My pastor’s main gift was shepherding – not teaching – so he utilized a team of teachers on Sunday nights and Wednesday nights.  I was happy with the arrangement because I enjoyed hearing others speak … and because I got to speak once a month as well.

I can’t recall what set off the grumbling, but many of us started feeling heightened anxiety around the church campus.  One night, someone caught me in the parking lot and told me that 10% of the church was going to leave if the pastor didn’t start preaching on Sunday nights.

Now what would you do with that information?

Some Christians would keep it to themselves.

Some would tell family and friends from the church.

Some would throw in their lot with the 10%.

Honestly, I wasn’t sure what to do.

I had a friend in the church – a man who went on to become an evangelist – and he and I discussed the situation.  We decided to visit the most influential man in the church … a layman known for his teaching, integrity, and straight talk.

My friend and I sat in his living room and said something like this, “There are people in this church who are attacking the pastor.  They are threatening to leave if he doesn’t start preaching on Sunday nights.  The pastor is devastated by this news and seems paralyzed to do anything about the situation.  What can we do to help him?”

Looking back, I don’t know whether or not this man was supportive of the pastor, but we had to take the risk.

He told us, “Gentlemen, when Paul talked about troublemakers in the church, he named names.  Who are these people?”

Wait a minute.  If we mention the names, isn’t that gossip?  Aren’t we tattling?  Couldn’t we get in trouble if we said too much about what was happening?

And some of those people were our friends.  How could we single out friends like that?

But this man was right.  Paul did name names – along with John, the apostle of love:

Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith.  Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.  1 Timothy 1:19-20

Their teaching will spread like gangrene.  Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth.  They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.  2 Timothy 2:17-18

Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm.  The Lord will repay him for what he has done.  You too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.  2 Timothy 4:14-15

I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us.  So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us.  Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers.  He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.  3 John 9-10

With biblical precedent upholding us, my friend and I divulged the names of the troublemakers we knew about – especially the ringleaders.

I learned an important lesson that day.  Sometimes church powerbrokers are successful in making threats and demands because nobody has the courage to identify them by name.

Think about this:

Last night, my wife and I watched a recently-produced film on Solomon’s life.  The film opens with King David near death – but he hadn’t yet chosen his successor.

So one of David’s sons engaged in a pre-emptive attempt to be anointed as king –  in league with David’s top general.

Their names?  Adonijah and Joab.

Not “one of David’s sons” – but Adonijah.

Not “a high-ranking military officer” – but Joab.

They were both executed for committing treason against David’s choice for king … Solomon.

One of Jesus’ 12 disciples betrayed him.

His name?  Judas from Kerioth.

Not just “one of the Twelve” – but Judas.

Before anyone could finger him, Judas took his own life.

Paul wrote in Romans 16:17:

I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned.  Keep away from them.

If you’re in a church, and you hear that someone is plotting against your pastor … do something about it.

Warn the pastor.  If you sense the board is supportive, talk to the board member you know and trust best.

Believe me, the pastor and/or board may have no idea of any division inside the ranks.  Your information may give them time to head off an attack before it ever takes place … or give them a key piece of information they lacked.

If you know that an individual or a group is planning on “going after” your pastor, speak to someone in authority – even if the plotters are your friends.

Because if you don’t, your church will eventually experience months of tension, division, and ugliness.  Friends will separate, donations will plunge, and people will leave.

If you know something, tell somebody!

Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.  James 4:17

Read Full Post »

Blaming Others for My Mistakes, Part 2

Posted in Church Conflict, Church Health and Conflict, Conflict with Church Antagonists, Current Church Issues, Fighting Evil, tagged , , , , , on June 6, 2012| 2 Comments »

I once got thrown out of Dodger Stadium.

It’s true.

When I was in eighth grade, my uncle took his son, my brother and me to a Dodgers-Mets game at Chavez Ravine.  It was the last Friday game of the season, Game 160.

We sat where we always sat at Dodger Stadium: in the general admission deck at the very top of the stadium.  Back then, I think it cost 75 cents for a kid to sit there.

My brother, cousin and I all sat in the front row of the top deck.  My uncle sat a few rows back.

The Dodgers weren’t very good that year, and the game was boring.  My brother and cousin would do anything on a dare, so I dared them to do something.

Expectorate over the railing and try and hit a certain bald guy in the head.

The two of them tried to hit him.  Oh, how they tried.  And when the guy below turned around and looked up at them, they pulled back and hid their faces.

But when he angrily stormed up the aisle – presumably in search of an usher or a policeman – the three of us hid in the men’s bathroom … where we were quickly caught … and discharged from the stadium.

My uncle was not happy.

“Honestly, I didn’t do it.  I didn’t do anything.  They did it all.”

But I suggested the idea … even if no fluids ever left my mouth.

I certainly bore at least some responsibility for our having to leave the ballpark that night … and I never tried a stunt like that again.

Does my little story have a familiar ring?  Remember what happened in the Garden after the first couple ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Adam told God, “The woman you put here with me – she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

Eve told the Lord, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

Wanting to maintain the illusion of perfection … before both God and each other … the parents of humanity did not claim any responsibility for their sinfulness.  They chose to say instead, “She’s the one to blame!” and “The devil made me do it.”

The two stories above are just a microcosm of what’s happening today in our culture.

A woman hates everyone … and blames her parents for her isolation even though they’ve been dead for years.

A man gets divorced … and blames his wife for her controlling ways.

A boss gets reprimanded … and blames three of his subordinates for all his troubles.

A church member is corrected for gossipping … and blames her misbehavior on her husband.

A president is overwhelmingly elected … and still blames many of his problems on the previous administration.

Maybe the woman’s parents were abusive … and the man’s wife was controlling … and the boss’ employees were problems … and the pastor did overreact a bit … and the previous president did leave things in a mess.

But does this mean that the accusers bear no responsibility for their failures?

Thirty years ago – can it be? – in his classic work The Road Less Traveled, Scott Peck wrote a chapter called “Neuroses and Character Disorders.”  Peck writes:

“Most people who come to see a psychiatrist are suffering from what is called either a neurosis or a character disorder.  Put most simply, these two conditions are disorders of responsibility, and as such they are opposite styles of relating to the world and its problems.  The neurotic assumes too much responsibility; the person with a character disorder not enough.  When neurotics are in conflict with the world they automatically assume that they are at fault.  When those with character disorders are in conflict with the world they automatically assume that the world is at fault.”

The statistics indicate that an increasing number of people are developing character disorders.  They fail to take responsibility for their actions, blaming others for their misbehavior.

When I was a pastor, I suspected that some of the people I had difficulties with had character disorders.  The tipoff was that they would never admit that they made a mistake or did anything wrong.  Even when they were caught redhanded telling a lie, they didn’t say what I heard them say.

In other words, it was all my fault.

It’s one thing to deal with someone with a character disorder occasionally at church.  It’s another thing to have a person with this condition as your parent, your boss, or your spouse.

Peck concludes his brilliant chapter this way:

“When character-disordered individuals blame someone else – a spouse, a child, a friend, a parent, an employer – or something else – bad influences, the schools, the government, racism, sexism, society, the ‘system’ – for their problems, these problems persist.  Nothing has been accomplished.  By casting away their responsibility they may feel comfortable themselves, but they have ceased to solve the problems of living, have ceased to grow spiritually, and have become dead weight for society.”

If you recognize such a person in your life, how can you relate to them?

First, realize you cannot get close to them.  We can only become close with people who display authenticity.  If you admit a weakness in your life to this person, don’t expect them to reciprocate.  They will disappoint you because they cannot be vulnerable.

Second, avoid working with them if at all possible.  When things go poorly, guess what?  They’ll blame you as a way of diverting the spotlight away from themselves.

Third, understand that you cannot work for them.  Some supervisors are sociopathic.  (There’s a lot of literature online about this problem.)  They charm their superiors while demeaning those who work underneath them … and divert any and all responsibility for failure to those they supervise.  When they make a mistake, they find someone else to blame.  It’s a sickness, and it can’t be resolved through prayer, office politics, or going to HR.  You can either quit, seek a transfer, or visit a counselor.

Finally, realize that people with character disorders will not change.  Why not?  Because somewhere along the line, they stopped taking responsibility for their choices.  Neurotics can change because they take responsibility – albeit too much – for their lives.  But people with character disorders are frozen in immaturity.  They may have the intellect of someone 42, but they’ll forever have the emotional intelligence of someone 13.

My guess is that you have a co-worker, a neighbor, an acquaintance, a supervisor, or a family member in this category.  Pray for them … and protect yourself and your family from them.

Imagine that you and the team you’re leading at church fail to meet a project deadline.

A healthy person does not say, “I’m 100% innocent … and my team is 100% to blame.”

A healthy person does not say, “I’m 100% to blame … and no one else bears any responsibility but me.”

The healthy person says, “I bear some responsibility for that mess-up.  Others do as well.  But I’m going to admit my part first … whether or not others admit theirs.  And I’m going to learn from this experience and not repeat my mistakes.”

Our Savior said it perfectly in Matthew 7:3-5:

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?  How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?  You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »