Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Conflict with Church Board’ Category

Slander in the Church

Posted in Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with Church Staff, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged , , , , on February 27, 2015| Leave a Comment »

Many years ago, I was preparing a sermon and decided to use a story I had read to illustrate a point.

There was just one problem: the book that told the story was buried in a box inside my garage.  Should I fish out the box and find the book?

I decided to tell the story from memory … and did just that the following Sunday.

Several days later, the pastor who wrote the book that was buried in my garage sent me an email.  He gently chided me for getting the story partly wrong.

Evidently he had been searching for his name online, found the manuscript of my message which was posted every week on the church’s website, read what I wrote, and decided to correct me directly.

I apologized to him for not getting the story completely accurate and learned a valuable lesson: when you refer to people by name – especially Christian leaders – you better tell the truth.

Since God “does not lie” (Titus 1:2), Jesus is “the truth” (John 14:6), and Jesus told the Father “your word is truth” (John 17:17), we can conclude that truth is extremely important to the Holy Trinity … and must characterize the lives of Jesus’ followers as well.

But during times of stress in churches, truth often becomes a major casualty … and even Christian leaders have been known to lie at times.

Let me share two fictional scenarios to illustrate my thesis:

The first scenario involves Pastor Bob who is struggling to manage the behavior of his youth pastor, Larry.

Larry has started avoiding worship services, causing most young people to follow his example and not attend, either.

In addition, Larry has been skipping staff meetings, which are mandatory.

And the pastor has received reports that Larry swears on youth outings … bashes Pastor Bob verbally whenever he can … and doesn’t agree with Pastor Bob’s vision.

Pastor Bob finally confronts Larry, who promises to change but quickly reverts to his old ways.

Pastor Bob doesn’t want to fire Larry because he is adored by both the parents and the youth … but Bob also knows that Larry deserves it.

So Bob goes to the church board … describes the situation … gains board approval … calls Larry into a meeting with the board chairman present … and fires Larry on the spot.

However, Bob is petrified by the potential fallout.  He’s worked hard to build the congregation and is concerned that if he tells the truth about Larry’s departure, people will blame Bob and leave the church in protest.

So Bob persuades the board to give a generous severance package to Larry as long as he keeps his mouth shut … the old “cash for silence” routine.

The following Sunday, Bob tells the congregation that Larry “is no longer our youth pastor” … but Bob avoids saying why.

However, six perceptive individuals corner Bob after the service and say, “Bob, tell us the truth … why is Larry no longer here?”

Knowing that Larry has been paid to stay quiet, Bob replies, “Well, Larry wasn’t really happy here, and some parents were upset with his performance, so Larry and I mutually agreed that he would leave.  That’s really the size of it.”

Those six individuals will now get on the phone … start sending emails … and repeat Pastor Bob’s untruths all over the church.

Some of those lies will make their way back to Larry … who will become livid that Pastor Bob didn’t tell the truth that Larry was unilaterally fired.

But Larry has been squashed like a bug and has no forum to rebut Pastor Bob’s inaccuracies.

The second scenario involves Pastor Bob and the church board two years later.

Two members of the eight-person board – Marshall and Stu – have become upset with Pastor Bob.  His crime?

He refused to marry each of their daughters because they weren’t marrying Christians.

Feeding off each other, and with their wives and daughters threatening not to attend church anymore, Marshall and Stu decide together that Pastor Bob has to go.  But they know that the other board members don’t care about their issue.

So they spend several lunch hours trying to create charges against Pastor Bob that will sound plausible and stick.

After several weeks of comparing notes, they decide on the following charges:

*Pastor Bob is not the right man to reach a changing community.

*Pastor Bob has been in the church too long and is past the point of effectiveness.

*Pastor Bob can’t manage his family well because his youngest son was suspended for skipping school.

And just in case those allegations don’t work, they add one more they can pull out of their back pocket without needing corroboration:

*Pastor Bob has been mismanaging church funds.

Over the next few months, Marshall lobbies three board members to see things his way.  Stu does the same with the other three members.

Eventually, two board members agree with Marshall, and one agrees with Stu, so the board has five votes to terminate Pastor Bob … and in the end, they vote 6-2 to fire him.

The church board is gravely concerned about the fallout after they announce Bob’s departure, so they decide to fortify their charges against him, adding several more.

They then meet with Bob … ask him to sign a separation agreement in exchange for a six-month severance package … but won’t answer one question that Bob asks:

“Why specifically am I being dismissed?”

Marshall mutters something about “it’s time for a change” and Bob walks into the night … stunned and abruptly unemployed.

After the board makes their announcement to the church, the spin begins: Bob could no longer manage his family … he mismanaged church funds … some people suspected him of having an affair … the staff no longer respected him … and on and on.

In fact, sometimes the board members change their story depending upon who they’re talking with at the time.

But the truth was that all of their “charges” were really pretexts because Marshall and Stu were angry that Pastor Bob hadn’t married their daughters.

Marshall and Stu knew the truth, but they didn’t dare tell the other board members or Pastor Bob.  That wouldn’t have sounded “Christian.”

Wounded and depressed, Pastor Bob withdrew from public life until two months before his separation agreement was set to expire.

He started applying for open pastoral positions inside his denomination, but four months and thirty-two applications later, he had not received one positive response from any church.

Then one day, out of the blue, a friend from his former church called Bob.  He told Bob that his reputation inside the church was in tatters … that it was going around that Bob’s son was on drugs, that Bob had stolen church funds, and that Bob had had an affair … none of it true.

No wonder Bob couldn’t generate any interest within his denomination!

The lies had done their work.

Believe me, what I have just written happens far more than it should inside of God-loving, Bible-believing Christian churches.

It evens happens in theological seminaries.

In the late Frank Pastore’s book Shattered, the former major league baseball pitcher for the Cincinnati Reds relates a story that still bothers me.

Frank (I spent an evening with him once) taught at my college and seminary.  A group of leaders wanted to “overthrow” the school’s president.

Frank was invited to participate, but he refused, making him a “loose end” that knew too much.  The result?

Frank writes, “So they put a kinder, gentler hit on me – character assassination by slander and gossip.  To my face they acted as though nothing had changed.  But all the while, they were destroying my reputation.”

Frank’s ministries suddenly evaporated.  And then he was dismissed from the school in the middle of a semester … and his son’s scholarship was pulled.

Understandably, Frank didn’t want anything more to do with ministry or the church again for a while … although he eventually became the host of a Christian radio program that perfectly suited his talents.

But here’s what I want to know:

Why do Christian leaders who claim to know and believe the truth sometimes resort to lying?

Why do some Christians tolerate the lies without calling out the leaders?

I’ll write more about slander in the church … including ways to stop it cold … next time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

When Churchgoers Threaten to Leave

Posted in Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with the Pastor, Forgiveness and Reconciliation among Christians, Personal Stories, Please Comment!, tagged , , , , on February 25, 2015| 2 Comments »

While going through some old church files recently, I stumbled upon a folder I forgot I had.

The folder contained documentation related to a couple who had once left a church I pastored.  I’ll call them Harry and Mary.

Harry came to Christ under my ministry.  A while later, I married him to Mary, a long-time Christian.  They attended several small groups that I led.

I even invited Harry over to watch the Super Bowl with me one year.

During premarital counseling, I discovered that Mary struggled with a particular issue.  While I made suggestions on how to manage things, there didn’t appear to be a long-term solution at hand.

Then one Sunday morning, I made a strong statement from the pulpit that reflected a value I held dear.  I could have said it better, but I explained it and moved on.

But I had hit a nerve with Harry and Mary.  They were incensed at what I had said.

Harry and Mary were part of a group that met after the first service.  When they entered the room, they immediately began criticizing me to a new couple.

That new couple never returned.

I don’t remember receiving flak from anyone else after making my statement, but Harry would not let me forget it.

He made an appointment with me in my office and wanted me to apologize for the statement that I made while preaching.

If he had said, “Jim, I appreciate your ministry.  I enjoy your preaching and have learned a lot about the Bible from you.  But that statement you made really stung, and here’s why,” I probably would have said, “Harry, I still believe in what I said, but I admit to you I could have said it better.”

But that’s not what Harry did.  He demanded an immediate apology.

Some pastors would have apologized on the spot.  Others would have stood their ground.

I tend to come from the “stand your ground” group.

And all I could think of was, “If I apologize this time for something I said while preaching, is he going to demand more apologies in the future?”

If I apologized, I was extremely concerned about the precedent I would be sending.

So I tried to explain rather than apologize … but that wasn’t enough for Harry.

He and his wife wrote a letter to the church board.  The chairman listened to the recording of my message.

The board’s conclusion: I hadn’t said anything wrong.

The board unanimously stood behind me, and Harry and Mary fired off another letter to the board, letting them know in detail why they were leaving the church.

Pastors would rather gather sheep than drive sheep away, but when sheep begin to threaten the shepherd, the shepherd must enforce boundaries.

Let me make four statements about people who threaten to leave a church:

First, making threats is a power move, not a love move.

Several years ago, I traced the English words “threat,” “threats,” and “threatening” throughout both Testaments and could not find a single instance in which those terms were used in a positive manner in Scripture.

When someone threatens us, they promise, “If you do A, I will do B” or “If you don’t do A, I will do B.”

Using a threat implies that the person making it (a) is superior to the person being threatened, and (b) views himself or herself as being indispensable.

While our world often operates by threats, that’s not the picture we receive in Scripture of how relationships operate in the body of Christ.

If I could do it all over again, I would have told Harry, “When you threaten me, I feel defensive and resistant.  If you’ll calm down and rephrase how you feel, I can hear you better.”

Second, making threats damages innocent people.

I once served on a church staff and was approached by someone who told me, “If the pastor doesn’t start doing Such-and-Such, ten percent of the people in this church are going to leave.”

That wasn’t a warning … that was a threat.

Based upon our attendance at the time, ten percent equaled 25 or 30 people.

That’s a lot of attendees … a lot of volunteers … and a lot of givers.  If they all left, it might take several years to replace them, and that can cause a pastor … or staffer … to panic.

My experience tells me that only a handful of those 25-30 people really felt strongly about the issue.  In fact, the likelihood is that most people agreed to join the cause simply to support their friends.

Knowing what I know now, I would have told the person making the threat, “This isn’t the best way to handle this situation.  Can you identify for me the two or three people who are most upset by this issue?”

If given their names, I would have said, “Chances are this is just their concern.  If this is a personal matter, I encourage someone to go and speak with the pastor directly.  If this is a policy matter, I encourage someone to go and speak with a board member directly.  But I encourage you to stop speaking for anyone who is unwilling to go directly to the pastor or the board.”

Suggesting a wiser course of action may not always work, but it’s worth a try.

Third, making threats works all too often.

This is why people do it … at least, at church.

People would never make similar threats at work, or at a government office, but they’ll do it with God’s people.  Why?

Peter Steinke writes in his book Congregational Leadership in Anxious Times that when some people use aggression and anger at church:

“Peace mongering is common.  With tranquility and stability reigning as premium values, congregational leaders adapt to their most recalcitrant and immature people, allowing them to use threats and tantrums as levers of influence.  Malcontents’ complaints never seem to cease.  Unwilling to confront the constant critic, leaders set the table for the unhappy souls to have a movable feast of anxiety.  By appeasing rather than opposing, leaders give control to reactive forces.  Feed them once and leaders can be sure they will be back for more.”

Of course, that’s the problem when threats work: it’s guaranteed those same threats will be used again.

Finally, making threats should never be rewarded.

Once Harry went to power … and refused to shift into love mode … I knew what the outcome was going to be: he and his wife were going to end up leaving the church.

For a few weeks, they sapped the energy out of the congregation, the church board, and their pastor.

More than 95 percent of our congregation liked the church the way it was.  People were growing spiritually and excited about our future.

But the more the board and I engaged with Harry and Mary behind closed doors, the less effective we were in ministering to the rest of the church.

Because of the energy sap, and because most people who make threats are never satisfied, I believe that most pastors and boards should handle similar situations swiftly but firmly by saying:

“We have listened to your complaints.  We have made a decision, and we cannot support the way you have handled things.  You have a choice: either stay at the church and support the ministry, or feel free to leave.  The choice is up to you.”

Pastors should never make threats, either, and those that do should be given the opportunity to rephrase their threat.  But if a pastor consistently says, “If you don’t do this my way, I will resign,” then a church board may reluctantly have to say, “Pastor, we don’t reward threats, so if that’s your final decision, we’ll accept your resignation.”

As a pastor, I hated it when people left the church, and tended to take it personally.

But sometimes, the best possible outcome is for unhappy people to walk out the door and never return … especially if they unwisely use threats.

And when people who use such tactics leave, throw a party!

I always did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Seven Principles for Resolving Pastor-Church Conflict

Posted in Church Conflict, Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with Church Staff, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged on February 13, 2015| 5 Comments »

Imagine that you’re a governing board member of a medium-sized congregation.

One of your fellow board members comes to you and says, “There is a movement inside our church to get rid of our pastor.  I’m on board … and I’d like you to join, too.”

This isn’t a rare occurrence inside churches.  This scenario happens all the time!

The material below is applicable whenever someone in your church … a faction, a staff member, a board member, or an alliance of critics … wants to force out your pastor.

Let me suggest seven principles that every board member needs to know when some churchgoers want their pastor to leave:

Principle 1: Expect that your pastor will be attacked.

Jesus was attacked by the religious leaders of His day.  Paul was attacked by heretics and church leaders alike.

So don’t be surprised when professing believers raise a clamor against your pastor.  Expect it!

Pastors are often attacked when:

*They institute major change.

*They ask people to increase their giving.

*They take a stand on a controversial cultural issue.

*They try to discipline a staff member.

*They make attempts to reach the surrounding community.

*They initiate a building program.

*They preside over declining attendance.

If your pastor wasn’t attacked last year, he might be attacked this year.  If he was attacked this year, he might still be attacked next year.

When your pastor is attacked, that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s done something wrong.  It might well be an indication that he’s doing things exactly right!

Principle 2: Devise a biblical and just process for handling complaints against your pastor.

That process starts by reading, studying, and implementing Paul’s instructions to Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:19-21:

Do not entertain an accusation against an elder [includes “those whose work is preaching and teaching” in verse 17] unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.  Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.  I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.

Before you say, “I am for or against the pastor,” it’s crucial that you take a step back and ask the other board members, “Which process will we use to evaluate these charges?”

The process must come before the product.

Paul felt so strongly about using a fair process whenever a Christian leader was attacked that he told Timothy “to keep these instructions without partiality” and “to do nothing out of favoritism.”  In fact, he strengthened his caution by stating that three witnesses would be watching how the pastor would be treated: the Father, the Son, and angelic beings.

Besides studying 1 Timothy 5:19-21 and other relevant New Testament passages, I encourage you to:

*Examine your church’s constitution and bylaws and see if there’s already a process in place for removing a pastor in those documents.

*Locate and consult with a labor attorney about the right and wrong ways to dismiss an employee in your state.

*Speak to a church consultant, a Christian conflict manager, or a Christian mediator about the issue.

If you’d like some specific guidelines for handling these situations, you might check out my book Church Coup on Amazon which can be downloaded as an e-book:

Principle 3: Discover who is unhappy with the pastor and the nature of their charges.

You want to know (a) all the names of those who are upset with the pastor, and (b) exactly why they’re upset.

This is thoroughly biblical.

In Deuteronomy 19:15-21, Moses states that for someone to be convicted of a crime in ancient Israel:

*The accusers need to go on record: “One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed.  A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”  This idea of multiple witnesses is repeated in Matthew 18:15-17 and 1 Timothy 5:19-21.

What usually happens is that the pastor’s accusers don’t want to go on the record.  They prefer to hide in the dark and support one of the pastor’s more vocal critics.

But you can’t let this happen.  You want the names of all the pastor’s critics.  Romans 16:17 says to “watch out for those who cause divisions.”  How can you watch out for them if you don’t know who they are?

Once you ask for the names, watch some people head for the hills.  But that’s good: you’ll have fewer people to deal with.

Once you have their names, you want to know precisely why they’re at odds with your pastor.

If it’s a matter of church policy, the pastor’s critics should be able to speak openly with any board member since the board usually makes policy.

If it’s a matter of the pastor’s personal behavior, encourage the critic to speak with the pastor directly … and leave the board out of it, at least initially.  Many of these situations involve petty complaints that nobody needs to hear about except the pastor’s accuser and the pastor.

However, if someone believes that the pastor is guilty of a major sin … like heresy, sexual immorality, or criminal behavior … then the board will need to do an investigation.

In Deuteronomy 19:18, Moses says that when a man is accused of a crime, “The judges must make a thorough investigation …”

Principle 4: Tell the pastor who is upset with him and why.

After your investigation is complete, the pastor needs to know the names of his accusers, and what their specific charges are.

It is unfair to say to the pastor, “Some people are upset with you.”  His first question will be, “Who is upset with me?”

It is unfair to say to the pastor, “Joe is upset with you” or “Mary is so hurt that she’s stopped coming to church” unless you also tell the pastor why they’re upset.

This is where church boards often blow it.

Too often, they don’t want the pastor to know who is upset with him because (a) the pastor’s accusers are their friends, (b) his accusers are influential/wealthy, (c) his accusers have threatened to leave the church en masse unless the pastor is removed, or (d) some board members agree with the pastor’s accusers.

And, of course, all this is done in the name of confidentiality.

But I believe strongly that the pastor has the right to know the names of those who are upset with him.

In fact, let me take this further: he has the right to face those same accusers … even if they’re on the church staff or the governing board.

In Acts 25:16, Porcius Festus spoke with King Agrippa about Paul: “I told them [the Jewish leaders] that it is not the Roman custom to hand over any man before he has faced his accusers and has had an opportunity to defend himself against their charges.”

But knowing the identity of your accusers and defending yourself against their charges is more than a Jewish practice (Deuteronomy 19:15-21) or a Roman practice.

According to 1 Timothy 5:19-21, it’s a Christian practice as well.

It’s easy at this point for a church board to say, “Well, Bill has threatened to leave the church if we don’t fire the pastor.  Bill has been here a long time … he has lots of family members in the church … he employs many people here … and if he leaves, there goes his money.  And if Bill goes, others will leave as well.”

But you can’t let a bully dictate how you’re going to treat your pastor.  Give in to Bill here, and he’ll run the church by default for years.

Instead, call a special board meeting … invite the pastor and Bill … let Bill make his charges … and let the pastor respond after each charge has been made.

If Bill has a real case, he’ll come to the meeting.  If he’s on a power trip, and knows his case is flimsy, he’ll leave the church in a huff.

Let him go.

Believe me, it’s easier to find another Bill than another pastor.  (And Bill can only return if he comes to a board meeting and repents for his foolish behavior.)

If Bill does come, let him make his charges.  If anyone else is willing to go on record, let them come as well.

When the charges have been made, and the pastor has had his say, then the board needs to go to the next step:

Principle 5: Deliberate together – prayerfully and carefully – about the pastor’s future in your church.

If it’s been demonstrated that the pastor has committed a major sin that disqualifies him from ministry, then the board needs to remove him from office … and as 1 Timothy 5:19-21 mentions, the board needs to tell the church something (after first consulting with an attorney).  The board should prepare a severance package and discuss the pastor’s exit from the church.

However, most of the time, the board will discover that the pastor’s critics strongly overreacted and turned a minor offense into a major sin.  If this is the case, then you need to exonerate your pastor as soon as possible … and if much of the church knows about your deliberations, you need to do this publicly.

If you believe the pastor needs to work on some issues to be more effective, then tell him specifically what your concerns are.  You don’t want to go through this experience very often!

If the pastor feels that the board has been unfair in the way the board handled matters, he may quietly begin to look around for a new ministry.

But if he believes the board has been fair and followed Scripture, he may become even more effective because he knows that if there’s another flare up, the board will use a biblical and deliberate process to address his critics.

I’ve told this story several times over the years, but I know a pastor who was severely criticized by four staff members.  They banded together, attacked him, and wanted him to leave.

The pastor was devastated.  The only way for him to survive the staff coup was to call a public meeting of the congregation, which he did.  When he did that, three of the staff members quit.

At the meeting, the pastor sat in a chair and fielded questions from the congregation for several hours.  His credibility intact, the pastor emerged from that meeting stronger than ever.

That pastor went on to become the leader of one of America’s largest churches which has impacted a major metropolitan city for Jesus Christ.  I know … I used to attend there.

So the whole idea that, “Well, since the pastor has been attacked, he’s damaged goods” is unbiblical thinking.  Jesus was attacked on many occasions, wasn’t He?  Did the attacks themselves discredit him?  If not, then why do attacks automatically mean that a pastor has to leave his church?

Principle 6: Aim for restoration, not for winning.

Too often, those who oppose the pastor want to win … and that means the pastor must lose.

Winning means that the pastor has to leave … and that me and my group now have more power than ever.

But when Christians seek to win at all costs, the chances are good that everybody will end up losing.

In my book Church Coup, I describe in detail a conflict that I experienced in my last church ministry.  Some people in the church were so determined to win that when the dust settled, the church lost its top ten leaders.

There was no attempt to restore anyone.  It was all about winning and losing.  That may be how the political and business worlds operate, but the church of Jesus Christ has a different set of values.

Jesus says in Matthew 18:15-17 that when a brother sins … and your pastor is your brother … you should aim to win your brother over … not defeat him soundly … and this often takes time.

Paul makes the same case in Galatians 6:1 where he says that “you who are spiritual should restore him gently.”  Again, winning is not envisioned.

The more a board tries to win a conflict with their pastor, the more damage they will cause their church family … and the damage can last for years, if not decades.  The more a board tries to restore their pastor, the less damage they will cause their church family.

Principle 7: Tell the truth about your pastor … and insist that others do as well.

The news has been filled recently with the story of Brian Williams, NBC anchor for their nightly news broadcasts.

Mr. Williams has been caught exaggerating about events where he was present, and lying about events where he wasn’t present.

It’s hard to watch someone destroy their own credibility in public.

But if you want to destroy your own credibility as a church board … and that of your entire church as well … then simply lie about your pastor.

When some people want to get rid of their pastor, they lie about him.  They accuse him of unbiblical beliefs … question his financial ethics … run down his family life … and accuse him of doing things he never did.

And believe me, the lies hurt.

I know this all too well.  I can fill several pages with the lies that have been said about me over the years … but so can every pastor.

But if there’s one person in the world you want to speak accurately about, it’s a man or woman of God.

The ninth commandment warns us, “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16).

Paul writes in Ephesians 4:25, “Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body.”

Jesus said that Satan “is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44).  When Christians lie about a pastor, they are doing the devil’s work for him.

And the lying is almost always an attempt to destroy the reputation of a man of God.

I beg you: no matter how you feel about your pastor … even if he has caused you and your church some grief … speak about him with the utmost accuracy … and insist that others do as well.

If you permit others to destroy the pastor’s reputation, it’s the same as if you were doing it yourself.

I know all too many pastors who are no longer in Christian ministry because people lied about them.

But isn’t the church of Jesus Christ to be known for proclaiming the truth rather than falsehoods?

If you want God to bless your church, then follow these seven principles when people are complaining about your pastor.

If you want to destroy your church, then just let your emotions run haywire and make it up as you go along.

I’m praying that you’ll follow these principles!

_______________

Today marks a milestone for this blog.  This morning, I recorded view number 100,000.

This is a niche blog.  I don’t write about current political issues, or doctrinal questions, or sports teams … although I’ve touched on just about everything over the past four+ years.

No, I try and write about pastors and church conflict.  That’s my field of interest and expertise.  In fact, it’s just about all I care about these days.

Most of my best-read articles have to do with pastors and conflict.  I want to bring to light issues that are usually shrouded in darkness.

Blog titles and articles whiz through my brain every day.  Sometimes if I nail down a good title, an article writes itself.

Today’s article flowed from my brain through my arms and fingers so quickly that I couldn’t write fast enough.  Other days, it’s a bit more of a struggle.

But I want to thank every one of you who reads this blog, whether this is your first time or you’ve been here many times.

I want to thank my son Ryan for setting up the basic format when we started in December 2010.  It’s been my baby ever since.

If you have any suggestions to make the blog better … or you want to suggest a topic … just use the comments sections and I’ll respond as soon as I can.

Thank you, Father, for using this blog to make a difference in the lives of many pastors, church leaders, and churchgoers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Why Pastors Under Attack Hibernate

Posted in Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with Church Staff, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged , , on February 9, 2015| 4 Comments »

How do you handle harsh criticism that is directed at you personally?

Most people don’t handle criticism very well.

Some people lash out at their critics.  Others engage in swift retribution.  Many turn to drink or drugs.  Some rush into counseling.

But when pastors are personally attacked, they tend to go into hibernation … especially if those attacks result in a forced exit.

By hibernation, I mean that the pastor holes up somewhere: in his house, a hotel, his car, or even at a friend’s house.

When a pastor hibernates, these phrases go running through his mind:

“I can’t believe what they are saying about me.”

By the time most Christians start attacking their pastor, they have been upset with him for some time.  They’ve probably shared their feelings with family members, good friends, or co-workers.

But the pastor remains unaware of those latent feelings until they surface … and when the pastor hears what is being said about him … or to him … he goes into a state of shock.

Many years ago, someone at my church accused me of a serious charge to my face.  I had received zero training on how to handle such an accusation.

I quickly brought over a staff member … called an attorney … then called the leader of the church board.  I repeated the charge to them and assured them of my innocence … and I was innocent.

My instincts led me to go home for the rest of the day.  I could not believe … and still cannot believe … that someone would make such a charge against me.

Jesus was accused of being a drunkard and in league with the devil, even though neither charge was true.  He often withdrew to desolate places to think and to pray … but I wonder if there were times when His spirit was so wounded by the charges some people were making against Him that He chose to hibernate.

“I can’t believe my friend has turned against me.”

It is difficult for most pastors to form close friendships inside their church family.

The larger a church grows, the more likely it is that the pastor spends most of his time with key members of the ministry staff or governing board.  So by default, most pastors select their friendships from the staff or the board.

After the pastor has carefully selected someone to be a friend, he still remains wary of them.  He wonders, “Can I trust them with information about my background?  About my home life?  About my feelings?  About my future plans?”

Some leaders fail the test right away, and while they remain a co-worker, the pastor doesn’t choose to pursue friendship with them.

But a few leaders seem to pass every test, and after a while, the pastor gradually learns to trust them with an increasing amount of personal information … and this process can take years.

So when one of the pastor’s few friends attacks him … or doesn’t support him when he’s under attack by someone else … the pastor is devastated … and all he wants to do is hide.

Judas’s betrayal wounded Jesus, but at least Jesus knew what Judas was going to do ahead of time.  Most pastors have no idea that a friend has become a traitor until it’s too late.

“I no longer know who to trust.”

I’ve been in hibernation mode before, and it’s downright scary.  You feel like the disciples right after Jesus was crucified … hiding out, afraid for your own life.

During my last church ministry, my wife and I were both attacked by people we thought were our friends.  During that time, I was advised to go into hibernation mode by someone who had been through what I was going through.

People from the church wrote me emails, wanting to know what was going on.

Some people called.  Some came to the door.  A few sent flowers.

But I couldn’t be transparent because when you’re in the middle of an attack, you have no idea who is for you or against you.

Put a little too much information into an email, and it could be circulated all over the church.

Reveal too much on the phone or at the door, and it will be repeated to others … often inaccurately.

I even went through my Facebook friends and “unfriended” anyone I suspected might be against me … or was good friends with those who were.

You choose to stay away from others … for a while … until it’s safe to go outside again.

So you hibernate.

“I have to stay safe until I can think straight.”

Imagine that you have a dream job.  You love the work and the people you work with.

Then one day, your boss calls you into her office, and without any warning, she fires you … ordering you to clear out your desk immediately.

How would you feel?

Confused … hurting … fearful … frightened.

You don’t know who to see … where to go … or what to do.

So you do the one thing guaranteed to keep you safe: hibernate.

That’s how pastors feel when they’re under attack.

In my case, I spent much of my time on the telephone speaking to people outside the church: Christian leaders, fellow pastors, ex-board members, close friends, and family members.

Just the interaction on the phone helped keep me sane.

I also spent time writing out what was happening to me and how I felt about it … which became the genesis of my book Church Coup.

I had many theories as to what was happening, and I was able to test those theories with people outside the church … who often gave me critical insights into what they thought was occurring.

When I was under attack, I discovered that the safety of hibernation helped me make better decisions … put things into perspective … and make wiser future decisions.

If you’re a pastor who is presently under attack, that instinct to hide out may very well be from God.

Let others investigate the charges against you and who is opposing you.  Learn all you can but stay out of sight.

And view that time of hibernation as a gift from a God who will eventually right all wrongs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

The Access-Influence Theory and Pastoral Termination

Posted in Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged , , on February 6, 2015| Leave a Comment »

Pastor Tim sighed.

He was not looking forward to his lunch meeting with Harold the next day.

Harold had been a member of the church board at Joy Fellowship for two years.  Although Tim liked Harold personally … and had approved his selection to the board … Tim wished someone else had come onto the board instead.

Tim had mistakenly assumed that Harold supported his ministry philosophy until after Harold’s first year on the board.  Then Harold starting sharing some bizarre ideas in meetings on how to move the church forward.

Now Harold had invited Tim to lunch … and Tim was uncertain of Harold’s agenda.

After exchanging pleasantries and talking about the Super Bowl, Harold produced a two-page list of “improvements” that he felt would make the church better.  Tim just listened as Harold excitedly discussed his suggestions.

Tim didn’t like any of Harold’s suggestions … and thought that several would drive people out of the church … so he just listened, thanked Harold for his ideas, and left the restaurant after an hour.

Over the next few months, Pastor Tim became immersed in hiring a new staff member, planning for a mission trip, and handling several unexpected deaths.  And in the process, he completely forgot about Harold’s ideas.

But Harold hadn’t forgotten about his suggestions.  He hadn’t forgotten that Pastor Tim wasn’t very enthusiastic about them, either.  And he hadn’t forgotten that Tim had never brought up any of his ideas in a board meeting.

Harold led a small men’s group that met on Saturday mornings.  The group decided to ask the entire church to support a missionary financially, so Harold went to the leader of the missions team and asked if they could make an announcement the following Sunday asking the congregation for monthly support.

The missions leader told Harold, “I’ll get back to you.”  Two days later, he called and said “No.”

Harold suspected that Pastor Tim was the one who vetoed the announcement … and Harold had guaranteed his cousin that the church would support him financially.

Harold was not a happy camper.

The pastor didn’t take his ideas seriously.  The pastor hadn’t implemented even a single one.  And now that Harold wanted to do something good … support a missionary … the pastor wouldn’t even support that.

Harold had had enough.

In his mind, there were only two options:

*Leave the church immediately.

*Get rid of Pastor Tim.

Harold and his family didn’t want to leave Joy Fellowship.  They had too many friends at the church to go somewhere else.

So Harold made a unilateral decision: Pastor Tim had to go.

_______________

Nearly a decade ago, I researched and wrote a doctoral project at Fuller Seminary on antagonism in churches … based on Scripture … and using family systems theory.

I studied five conflicts that had occurred at the church I pastored over the previous ten years.

In each case, a church leader assumed they had a special relationship with the pastor.

In each case, a dispute arose over a specific issue championed by the leader.

In each case, the pastor made a decision that went against the wishes of the leader.

In each case, the leader turned against the pastor and became an antagonist.

_______________

People become antagonistic toward pastors for a variety of reasons:

*They lack spiritual depth.

*They become emotionally reactive when they’re hurt.

*They believe the pastor has singled them out for embarrassment.

*They tend toward paranoia … thinking the pastor is out to get them … and decide to “get him” before he “gets me.”

*They aren’t comfortable with his preaching style … or content.

*They view the pastor as a father figure … or a brother figure … or a son figure … who has rejected them.

*They think the pastor is taking the church in the wrong direction.

But I believe that in many cases … and this is just a theory on my part … someone in a church … especially a leader … becomes antagonistic toward the pastor because:

*The pastor doesn’t seem to be listening to or championing any of their ideas.

*The pastor doesn’t seem to recognize that person as being “special.”

*The pastor hasn’t included this individual in his social circle.

*The pastor has resolved a dispute against the wishes of the other person.

And this is the killer:

*The pastor has limited this person’s access and influence in his ministry.

I was once the pastor of a church where a prominent leader angrily left the church.

A friend of his came to see me in my office.  The friend wanted the leader to come back to the church.

The leader said he would return if I granted him one request:

He wanted complete access to me as pastor.

I said, “No.”  The leader never returned.

What did the leader want?

He wanted to run the church through me.

He had some success doing that with the previous pastor.  It made him feel valuable and validated.

But what happened if I crossed him … or he didn’t like a decision I made … or a sermon I preached … or the schedule I kept?

I knew what would happen: he would come after me with full force … because that’s what he did to the pastors in his previous two churches.

_______________

For those of you who have been through pastoral termination … or know someone who has … see if you can answer the following question:

To what degree was the pastor’s exit determined by people who wanted complete access to him and total influence with him yet didn’t get it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Dismissing the Coach, Dismissing the Pastor

Posted in Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged , , on January 30, 2015| 6 Comments »

Jim Harbaugh is a great football coach.

He’s won everywhere he’s gone as a head coach: the University of San Diego, Stanford University, and the San Francisco 49ers.

And he’s not only won, but quickly turned failing programs around, which is why his alma mater, the University of Michigan, hired him immediately after Harbaugh and the 49ers parted ways.

The 49ers have been my favorite National Football League team since 1981 when quarterback Joe Montana connected with Dwight Clark in the end zone for “The Catch” in the last minute of the NFC title game against the favored Dallas Cowboys.

So I’ve followed Jim Harbaugh’s four years in San Francisco pretty closely.

To put it mildly, Harbaugh is a very intense individual … but he’s also a winner.  He took the 49ers to three straight NFC Championship Games and one Super Bowl after the team experienced years in the football wilderness.

But the team’s owner and key front office personnel decided they wanted to get rid of Harbaugh months before the 2014 season ended, even though he had an additional year left on his contract.  (The 49ers finished 8-8.)

The 49ers just hired a new coach: Jim Tomsula, their defensive line coach.  The columnists in the Bay Area are not happy about the hire.  In their view, Tomsula is NOT Harbaugh … or even close.

In fact, Tim Kawakami, columnist for the Mercury News in San Jose, recently wrote a column in which he makes the following statement:

“What was the 49ers’ plan here?  Now it’s clear: Letting go of Harbaugh was the plan.  That’s it:  Get rid of the guy who gave them all palpitations.  Nothing more.  There was no other thought put to this beyond dumping their nemesis and for that they planned and plotted and leaked for months and months.”

Kawakami goes on:

“They knew they wanted Harbaugh out.  They knew he was popular.  They had to go backwards to figure out WHY they would publicly announce he was out.

Their solution:

-Talk about ‘winning with class’;

-Declare that any season ending without a Lombardi Trophy is a failure and a potential fire-able offense;

-Pretend it was a ‘mutual separation’;

-Let it be known that you’re talking to a lot of great candidates;

-Hire Tomsula, the comfortable in-house candidate who basically is the opposite of Harbaugh in all personal ways, especially in dealing with ownership;

-And, most fatefully of all, communicate to all that you don’t think the coach is that important, anyway.”

Does all of this sound familiar?

When a church’s governing leaders  or a powerful faction decide they want to push out a pastor, they usually focus all their energies on getting rid of him.

And in turn, they don’t have much of a plan … if any … as to how the church will fare without him.

Getting rid of him is their goal.

What’s their plan beyond that?

Zilch.

I once attended a spring training baseball game with a friend who served with me on a church board for many years.  While talking about church leaders that plot to get rid of their pastor, I asked my friend, “Don’t church boards know how much they will destroy their church when they run off their pastor?”

My friend stated matter-of-factly, “They don’t care.”

In these situations, board members give their best energies to making sure the pastor leaves.  But when the dust settles, now they have to:

*Hire an interim pastor.

*Form a search team to find a new senior pastor.

*Placate the departing pastor’s supporters.

*Assign other staff/lay leaders to handle the departing pastor’s work load.

*Address the multitude of complaints that will come their way.

In addition, they’ll have to deal with:

*Reduced attendance as the pastor’s supporters leave.

*Cutting back the number of worship services to hide all the empty chairs.

*Decreased giving as donors walk out the door.

*Keeping the staff intact with that decreased giving.

*Preventing the staff that supported the pastor from leaving.

*Plunging morale as the church gradually enters an entropy phase.

*Answering questions from churchgoers such as, “Why did the departing pastor leave?” and “What’s going to happen to our church?” and “When are we going to get a new pastor?”

The temptation is for the board to blame everything on the departing pastor.  After all, he’s not around to defend himself.

But when church boards do this … and all too many do … they can ruin a pastor’s reputation and choke his ability to find a new church ministry … forever.

I’m not arguing that every pastor should stay in a church regardless of his behavior.  As I’ve said many times, heresy, sexual immorality, and criminal behavior disqualify a pastor from leadership, and it’s a thankless task to sit on a church board that has to clean up such a theological or moral mess.

But much of the time in churches, the pastor is forced out because he’s earned too much authority for the board and/or staff to control.

Tim Kawakami makes this observation in his article on Harbaugh and the 49ers:

“My point is that [the 49ers’ brain trust] set themselves up for this by treating Jim Harbaugh—and his achievements—as cavalierly as they did all last year and for convincing themselves that there would be no ill effects from it.  Wrong.”

A far better solution … one that all too few churches try … is to hire a consultant … or a conflict manager … or a mediator … anyone both the pastor and board can trust … who will help them learn how to work together more favorably.

Rather than forcing out the pastor and sending the church into a descending spiral, wouldn’t it be better for everyone concerned if the board at least tried to bridge their differences with their pastor first?

The future of many pastors and churches is at stake.

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Damaged Pastor Syndrome

Posted in Burnout and Depression in Ministry, Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged , , , on January 28, 2015| 5 Comments »

When a pastor is under attack inside his church, he begins to suffer from a condition I’d like to call Damaged Pastor Syndrome.

DPS strikes a pastor when he picks up signals that an individual or a group are laying the groundwork to force him from office.

These signals include church members:

*Making inquiries about church attendance and giving patterns.

*Requesting copies of the church constitution and bylaws.

*Calling district or denominational headquarters.

*Visibly gathering before and after church … even if they don’t travel in the same social circles.

*Increasingly making negative comments on social media about the church and/or pastor.

In addition:

*The governing board may call itself into executive session without the pastor’s foreknowledge.

*Staff members may begin to resist the pastor’s directives.

*Staffers may become secretive while talking on the phone.

*Some church leaders may limit or avoid social time with the pastor altogether.

*Certain board and staff members may stop coming to worship … especially when the pastor is preaching.

Most pastors – nearly 80% – are very sensitive individuals, and when they sense an attack is coming, they quickly acquire DPS.

Let me share a story from my own ministry to illustrate this more concretely.

During my second pastorate, the seniors’ Bible class rebelled against me.

They didn’t like the new music the board had approved for worship.  They didn’t feel I was paying them enough attention.  And the class’s teacher – a former pastor who couldn’t find a job anywhere in Christendom – began to feel powerful as his class focused on the source of their discontent: their pastor.

Before long, rumors of discontent became reality.

A board member found out that a group of seniors were going to hold a secret meeting at a specific time and place.  He told me about the meeting.

I was afraid and anxious.  I couldn’t think.  And I wondered, “Why doesn’t this group like me?  What have I done to offend them?”

My wife and I went to a movie – a Disney cartoon, as I recall – just so I could focus on something other than that meeting.

In the end, it didn’t come off because the supportive board member showed up at the meeting unannounced and took away all their fun.

But that didn’t stop them.  They rescheduled and reloaded.

Because I didn’t know what was happening … and could only imagine the worst … I shifted into survival mode.

In the end, they created a two-page list of complaints against me, my wife, our son (who was 9), and our daughter (who was 6).

When I found out about this, I called a special board meeting and informed the entire group about the plot.

To a man, they stood with me … even though my district minister recommended that I resign.

But for weeks, I was a wreck.  I couldn’t sleep … couldn’t carry on a decent conversation … couldn’t trust people … and couldn’t think about anything other than the attack.

Because I had shifted into fight or flight mode, I was pumping adrenaline at a furious rate to handle the emergency.

The conflict went on for months … until the seniors and their buddies all left the church en masse … forming a new church one mile away.

Now here’s how DPS becomes relevant: when a pastor is under attack, he will be further attacked for responding to the attack like a human being.

For example, when a pastor is under attack:

*If he becomes depressed, he will be attacked for looking gloomy.

*If he becomes fearful, he will be attacked for not appearing strong.

*If he becomes anxious, he will be attacked for not trusting God.

*If he becomes isolated, he will be attacked for being aloof.

*If he becomes ill, he will be attacked for appearing unhealthy.

In other words, the very people who abuse, betray, and criticize the pastor will kick him around even more for not handling himself the way they think he should.

They will ask people in the church: “How can he be our pastor if he isn’t going to set a better example for the rest of us?”

DPS may be the primary reason why pastors end up resigning after enduring a sheep attack.

It took me six months to recover my energy after that group left the church.  The pastor of one of America’s largest churches told me that after he survived a similar attack, it also took him six months to recover, so this may be a pattern.

The group attacking the pastor is correct: the pastor may not be very effective for a while due to anxiety, depression, and fear.

But the group is wrong about why the pastor quickly wilts.  It’s not because he’s a poor example … it’s because shepherds are never prepared for sheep to turn on them and stomp them into the ground.

Since pastors are attacked while on the job, it only seems fair for the congregation and/or church board to assume responsibility for the pastor’s care while he recovers.  This includes a reduced workload … extended time off … funds for counseling … a visit to a retreat center … and creating safeguards to resist another attack.

Because most of the time, it’s not a weakness in the pastor that causes him to collapse under pressure … it’s a weakness in the church system that allows the attack in the first place.

Think about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Protecting a Pastor’s Reputation

Posted in Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with the Pastor, Forgiveness and Reconciliation among Christians, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged , , , on January 21, 2015| 3 Comments »

After a pastor has been forced out of a church, he goes through an incredible amount of pain.

*He loses his position … and maybe his career.

*He loses most of his church friends … and sometimes his wife and/or children.

*He loses his income … and can’t file for unemployment.

*He loses his joy and drive … and his ability to trust people.

Statistics indicate that 45% of the time a pastor experiences a forced exit, a small faction was responsible for his departure.

Only 7% of the time is the pastor’s misbehavior the real reason for his leaving.

And yet … after his last day … forces inside the church will informally conspire to blame everything on him.

What are these forces?

First, many interim pastors blame the previous pastor for any conflict that ensued.

I hear these stories all the time.  They have become predictable.

An interim is hired … comes to a church that’s just pushed out their shepherd … and concludes, “The pastor deserved to leave.”

Why does the interim do this?

*He wants to curry favor with his new employers.

*He wants to discredit the previous pastor so he will look good by comparison.

*He wants to make friends with “the faction” so they won’t turn on him.

*He wants the shadow of the previous pastor to stop hovering over him.

*He wants to “forget the past” and move on.

But in the process, many … if not most … interims allow the reputation of the previous pastor to be trashed.

And what’s sad is that in most cases, the interim has never even met the previous pastor.

Wouldn’t it be better if an interim pastor said this publicly instead?

“I have never met your pastor, so I don’t know him at all.  From what I’ve heard, he did a lot of good while he was here.  I’m sure that many of you have fond memories of him, especially when he ministered to you during a time of need.  Although I don’t know all the events surrounding his departure, as long as I’m here, we’re going to honor him for the good that he did, and pray that God will eventually bring about reconciliation between the pastor and anyone who might be upset with him.”

But when is the last time you heard an interim pastor say something like that?

Second, the church board blames the previous pastor as well.

They say things behind the scenes like:

“He always wanted his own way.”

“He wanted to change things too fast.”

“He refused to cooperate with us.”

“He never listened to our ideas.”

These charges sound credible because members of the governing board both knew and worked with the pastor.

But there are two problems with these statements:

*The pastor isn’t around to defend himself.  He may have a vastly different interpretation of the circumstances prompting his departure.

*The church board ends up taking zero responsibility for their part in the pastor’s exit … leaving them in a position to repeat their error.

During my 36 years in church ministry, there were many staff members who worked under me.  Sometimes, those situations didn’t work out.

When they left, I asked myself, “What did I do to contribute to their lack of success here?”

If it was a character issue, there may not have been anything I could do.

But if it was a supervisory issue, then maybe I did bear some responsibility for their leaving … and I didn’t want to repeat my mistake with the next person hired.

Wouldn’t it be better for a church board to say this publicly instead?

“We are sad that our pastor has left.  He was called here by God.  He loves his wife and children.  He worked hard as pastor.  We felt that his preaching was biblical and instructive, that he cared deeply for the people of this church, and that he will be very much missed.  Although we aren’t able to share all the details of his departure, we believe that he still has a future in ministry.  Therefore, we will not tolerate anyone trying to destroy the pastor’s reputation.  If we hear any talk along this line, we promise that you will be confronted and corrected.  Let’s not cause any more pain for the pastor or our people.”

But when is the last time you heard a board say something like that?

Third, the faction that drove out the pastor must blame the pastor. 

They have to.  It’s part of their narrative.

The faction could be a group of old-timers … or seniors … or traditionalists … or staff members … or the church board … or a synthesis of these groups.

The faction … often as few as 7 to 10 people … will blame all the church’s problems on the previous pastor for a long time.

They want the spotlight on him … not on them.

But this isn’t the tactic of a mature believer, but of a child.

When I was in second grade, some girls were bothering me.  One recess, my friend Steve and I handled things … unwisely.

The girls told the teacher.  The teacher came over to me in class and shook me … hard.

Thinking fast, I blamed everything on Steve … and it worked.

I don’t remember what happened to Steve, but I quickly found myself in the clear.

The girls shouldn’t have done what they did.  And Steve shouldn’t have helped me scatter them.

But I bore responsibility for my actions.

And when a faction plays a part in pushing out a pastor, they are responsible for their actions.

But for some reason … and I will never, ever understand this … nobody at the church holds them responsible.

In fact, they’re usually forgiven (which really means excused) without demonstrating any kind of repentance.

Their false accusations … malicious charges … gross overreactions … and attempts to destroy someone called by God are all ignored by the interim pastor … church board … and church staff.

And then, to guarantee future immunity, this group cozies up to the interim and the new pastor.

Wouldn’t it be better for the pastor’s attackers to say this publicly instead?

“We were angry with the pastor.  He didn’t always do what we wanted him to do.  His resistance made us anxious.  And so we overreacted.  We spread vicious lies about him.  We ran him down every chance we could.  We used the telephone and social media to make him look bad.  Even though our accusations clearly hurt him, we kept things up, even attacking his wife and children.  But we were wrong.  Although we can’t bring the pastor back, we admit our part in his departure, and will submit to any correction that the church board deems fair.  And we promise to apologize to the pastor for the way we treated him and his family.  We have asked God to forgive us and ask you as a congregation to forgive us as well.”

But when is the last time you heard a faction say something like that?

When pastors leave a church prematurely, they may have made some mistakes … but that doesn’t mean their reputations should be besmirched in their former church … among their former church friends … or in the wider body of Christ.

The single best way to protect the previous pastor’s reputation is for the remaining church leaders to properly assess responsibility for the pastor’s departure.

If the pastor was guilty of heresy, sexual immorality, or criminal behavior, okay, then maybe he’s fully or almost fully to blame for his leaving.

But if a faction rose against him … and the board turned against him … and some staff betrayed him … then how can the previous pastor be 100% to blame?

He can’t be.

God forgive us for the way many Christians thoughtlessly harm the reputations of a former or current pastor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Telling the Truth After a Pastoral Termination

Posted in Church Conflict, Church Health and Conflict, Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with Church Staff, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, tagged on January 12, 2015| 8 Comments »

Pastor Paul was in great pain.

Paul had been the pastor of a medium-sized congregation for four years, and as far as he could tell, things were going great.

After years of decline, attendance had turned around.  Giving was up.  There were plans to buy additional land and construct a new building.

It was evident that people felt great about their church.

Most people.

But a handful weren’t happy.  They no longer had access to the pastor … weren’t involved in making important decisions … and disagreed with the pastor’s direction for the church.

So eight people began meeting in secret.  They pooled their complaints and pledged to return the church to its pre-Paul state.

But to do that, they first had to bounce Pastor Paul.

And to get rid of him, they had to fight dirty.

They made lists of his flaws … wrote down “questionable” expressions in his sermons … and pulled others into their web.

They even recruited a staff member and two board members to their cause.

Before long, that group of eight had swelled to twenty-three … about five percent of the entire congregation.

When the “charges” going around finally reached Pastor Paul, he panicked.  He began having anxiety attacks … started isolating himself from people … and began breaking down emotionally.

Sensing their strategy was working, the pastor’s critics turned up the heat.

The pastor started preaching less assertively.  He was guarded around members, not knowing who was for or against him.

When his wife began folding under the strain, Pastor Paul negotiated a severance package with the board and quietly left.

Now here’s a question I’d like you to answer:

Should the church board … or members of the church staff … or the local denominational executive … tell the congregation the real reason why the pastor resigned?

The tendency in evangelical churches is to do the following:

*The board issues itself a “gag order” and refuses to discuss the situation inside the church.

*The board puts the staff under the same “gag order” … even threatening their jobs if they say what they know.

*The leader of the denominational district responds to inquiries by using stock phrases like “some people disagreed with the pastor’s direction” or “this problem goes back many years” or “there were philosophical differences” … phrases designed to make people stop asking questions.

*The pastor is given a severance package in exchange for not saying anything about why he left.

*An interim pastor comes to the church and says, “Let’s forget the past and focus on the future.”

But do these actions truly bring healing to the former pastor … church board … staff members … and congregation?

In the meantime, do we as followers of Jesus ever stop to ask ourselves, “Is this really the healthiest way to handle matters?”

In Dennis Maynard’s book Healing for Pastors & People Following a Sheep Attack, the former pastor, author, and church consultant writes the following:

“The healing moment for the wounded members of the congregation will come when the real reason for the pastor’s leaving is brought into the light.  If the former pastor’s leaving was the consequence of a sheep attack then the interim period must be used to bring that out of the shadows and into the open.  It is not a secret!  The denominational executive and the remaining lay leaders may try to pretend so.  The antagonists will put their spin on it.  Most every member of the congregation already knows otherwise.”

I almost cried when I read those words.  Finally, a prominent Christian leader believes that only the truth will really set a church free!

Maynard says that if this step isn’t taken, then those who forced out the pastor will continue to blame him for everything.  But “the spin of the antagonists only deepens the anger in the congregation.  Resentment will build among those members that desperately want the truth to be brought into the open.  The end result is that their alienation from the parish is made complete…. The real dysfunction that is common knowledge in the congregation … is that the pastor was targeted, bullied and attacked.”

After a pastor is forced to leave a church, some people … perhaps many … will eventually leave.

You can’t hold onto everybody.

If church leaders fail to tell the truth, they’ll lose the good people.

If they do tell the truth, they’ll probably lose the antagonists and their friends.

Seems like a no-brainer, doesn’t it?

So why not the tell the truth?

Maynard continues:

“Pretending that the systemic dysfunction does not exist will not correct it.  It must be named and confronted.  I also contend that openly naming and discussing what happened is a critical component in the healing process.  The hurting hearts of the injured members of the congregation need it.  To do otherwise will only cause many faithful lay people wounded by the experience to leave.  Far too many of them will permanently walk away from the Church sad, angry and disgusted.  Some will stay but become passive to inactive members.  Their bitterness toward the denominational authorities and the antagonists will accelerate.  Others will seek a new congregation but will choose to become uninvolved.  Many will never return to their former ministries of leadership in any parish.”

Dennis Maynard is a leader in the Episcopal Church, which is considered to be a mainline denomination.  I believe that what he writes is biblical and true to reality, even though it may not be politically correct among evangelical leaders who seem to prefer expediency to honesty.

When a group of bullies forces a pastor to resign, why won’t anybody talk about what happened openly?

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Pastors in Jeopardy

Posted in Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged , , , on December 17, 2014| 2 Comments »

Alex Trebek was not happy.

The thirty-year host of the TV game show Jeopardy was hosting Kids Week on the program during the first week in December.

One of the contestants ended up $1400 in the red, and according to show rules, she couldn’t compete in Final Jeopardy.

Trebek said to the girl: “We have bad news for you, because you’re in a negative situation, it means you won’t be around for Final Jeopardy, but you’ll automatically pick up $1000 for a third place finish.”

The girl was visibly upset and ran backstage.

The girl’s mother later wrote a letter to Sony, the show’s producers: “If he had taken the time, he would have known, like you do, that my daughter is not a sore loser, and does not become emotional solely over losing a game,” she wrote. “She was upset about not being able to completely play the game to the end… I don’t think I’ll ever forgive him for that.”

Trebek was accused of not making a credible effort to make the girl feel better and was asked to re-tape the moment right before the girl became upset and ran backstage.

Pastors go through this stuff all the time.

During my first pastorate, I was reading William Manchester’s biography of General Douglas MacArthur called American Caesar.  I discovered that I knew next to nothing about MacArthur or his accomplishments … like writing Japan’s constitution after World War 2 ended.

During one sermon, I selected an illustration from the book, a story where the Americans won and the Japanese lost.

A young couple attended our church.  The wife was Caucasian … and her husband looked Caucasian.

His wife later told me that he was part Japanese, part Caucasian … and that because of my story, he probably wouldn’t be coming back to the church.

How could I know that he was part Japanese … and how could I know that my story might offend him?

From the beginning of my pastoral ministry, I wrote out my sermons word for word, and then discarded my manuscript as much as I could.

I realize this style isn’t in fashion nowadays because congregations expect their pastors to speak without notes.

But one reason I chose to write out my messages was because I had time to think through how to say what I wanted to say so I would offend the fewest possible people.

But just like Alex Trebek, a pastor never knows when he’s going to say something offensive … or who is going to be offended.

My wife runs a preschool in our home with about 25 kids attending at various times.  She can say the exact same thing in the same way to 24 kids and they’ll comply, but the 25th child will burst into tears.

Should she then aim her directives toward the 24 kids or the one kid who is overly sensitive?

And should a pastor speak to the congregation as a whole or change his language so some people won’t be offended?

I once heard Bill Hybels from Willow Creek Church say that about 15% of his congregation might be classified as dysfunctional, while the other 85% were pretty healthy people.  (This was at least twenty years ago, so the percentage of dysfunctional people might be higher now.)  Hybels believed that a pastor should direct his message toward the 85% and direct the 15% toward counseling.

How does that sound to you?

Pastors have two choices when it comes to preaching: they can speak in a politically and emotionally correct way … in which case they won’t say much at all … or they can be themselves before God and just let it fly.

But it’s not just up to the pastor, but up to the church board as well.

If the church board backs the pastor’s right to say whatever he wants before God … even if some don’t always agree with him … that pastor’s ministry can flourish.

But if the board demands that the pastor speak in such a way that he doesn’t offend the wrong people … that pastor’s ministry may not succeed because he’ll always wonder if he’s offending somebody by what he says.

During my last ministry, I said something in a message that really upset one couple.  They complained to the church board and wanted my head.

The board chairman listened to a recording of my message, felt I didn’t say anything wrong, and told the couple just that.

They didn’t stop their crusade against me until they left the church … livid … but I felt supported, and free to continue to say whatever God wanted me to say.

In the end, Alex Trebek wrote the following words to the show’s producers: “If you all think I should retape the opening, I will.  But I want to say that for 30 years I’ve defended our show against attacks inside and out.  But it doesn’t seem to operate both ways.  When I’m vilified, corporate (and certainly legal) always seems to say ‘don’t say anything and it’ll blow over,’ and I’m not feeling support from the producers, and that disappoints the _______ out of me.”

As a former pastor for 36 years, I understand where the Jeopardy host is coming from.

When you’re attacked, if you sense support from those you account to, you’ll forge ahead with greater confidence and boldness.

But if those you account to collapse on you when you’re attacked, your morale will plunge, and you’ll start looking for a way out … which is why Alex Trebek ended his statement by saying, “Maybe it’s time for me to move on.”

My favorite verse on preaching is John 1:17: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”

Fundamentalists focus on speaking the truth … but often without grace.

Liberals focus on speaking with grace … but usually have little to say.

But biblical pastors prioritize truth in content … and grace in presentation.

And those are the ministries that make it to Final Jeopardy.

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »