Restoring Kingdom Builders

Every day, it’s the same thing.

The number one phrase that people enter into their search engine that directs them to this blog is “how to terminate a pastor.”

Yesterday, there were three phrases using the terms “terminate” and “pastor,” as well as a fourth entry: “forcing out a pastor.”

There have been days when I’ve woken up and my article called “If You Must Terminate a Pastor” has been read multiple times.  It makes me wonder if it’s been read by an entire board somewhere that’s struggling with this issue.

I’d like to offer five suggestions to church leaders before they act to force their pastor out of his position:

First, talk to your pastor about your concerns.  When my kids were growing up, if they messed up in some fashion, I corrected them immediately.  They knew what I expected and were given time to change their behavior.

A pastor should be treated in a similar manner.

I realize it’s never easy to correct a pastor, but if he’s saying or doing something wrong – or there’s something he’s neglecting to do – then a member of the governing board needs to discuss it with him as soon as possible.

Let’s say a pastor is delving too much into politics in his messages.  In all likelihood, a few people from the church will contact him and tell him they think he’s crossing a line.  This might alert the pastor to a problem, but he might ignore their opinions and plow ahead anyway.

One of the board members then has to talk with the pastor, and the sooner, the better.  If it was me, I wouldn’t wait until the next official board meeting.  Instead, I’d invite the pastor out for a meal and share my concerns with him – and I would speak only for myself, not for the rest of the board.

Many pastors would realize they’ve crossed a line and would stop injecting politics into their sermons right away.  Mission accomplished.

After a private conversation – recommended by Jesus in Matthew 18:15 – the issue should now be closed.

However, some board members just can’t bring themselves to talk to the pastor in private.  So they begin talking about the pastor to each other.  Joe has one complaint against the pastor, Bill has another, and Reed has still another.  All of a sudden, Joe’s complaint is adopted by Bill, and Bill’s is adopted by both Reed and Joe.

This is how church conflict begins: by pooling complaints.

As they do this, the board members start to believe that maybe the pastor should leave.  In fact, they find it easy to blame him for everything that is wrong with their church.

However, the pastor isn’t at fault.  He doesn’t even know about the conversations the board members are having with each other.  Because they failed to use the biblical principle of confronting him directly before involving others (Matthew 18:15), everything that happens from this moment on will largely be the responsibility of those three board members.

If a pastor messes up – and he will from time-to-time – then one person should speak with him in private without involving others.  Ideally, if there are five members on the church board, then all five should approach him separately.

Wouldn’t you like to be treated that way?

Second, be clear about the change you expect.  While pastors are gifted individuals, they are not mind readers.  If you want your pastor to change the way he does ministry, you have to define the change you want.  Don’t make him guess what you’re thinking.

I served with one board that asked me to stop wearing a suit on Sundays and dress down a bit more.  Except for funerals and weddings, I never wore a suit after that.

One board member asked me to quit putting down the Dodgers in my messages.  They were his favorite team and he felt attacked every time I did it.  I stopped.

Here’s the template: “Pastor, I’d like to ask if you’d start/stop doing _____ for this reason: _____.”

I don’t believe that such a statement should be presented as a demand but as a request.  However, unless it’s a matter of doctrine or ethics, you may have to let the pastor make up his own mind about your request.

Many years ago in my first pastorate, two deacons called on a Saturday night and asked me if they could come over and talk with me.  When they arrived, I climbed into one of their cars and heard them out.

They wanted me to give altar calls every Sunday morning.

A public invitation is when a pastor invites people to receive Christ in a church service, often by praying right where they are.

An altar call is much more public.  It’s when a person is asked to walk to the front of the church before receiving Christ, like at a Billy Graham crusdade.

I wrote my thesis in seminary on “a theological evaluation of the altar call.”  I didn’t want to start doing it because we had a church of 40 Christians with few visitors.  Since everybody was already saved, nobody was going to walk forward, even if I was Billy Graham.  Then they would judge my ministry a failture.

Besides, the practice isn’t mentioned anywhere in Scripture and comes out of the 19th century camp meetings.  It’s an option, not a necessity.

So I told them I wouldn’t do it.  (I had more guts at 27 than I do now!)  They accepted my decision – and they never brought it up again.  But I was grateful that they spoke with me about making a specific change.

Third, give the pastor time to change.  With an issue like mentioning politics in a message, the pastor should be expected to stop right away.  If he crosses a line again, then the person who initially spoke with the pastor might choose to take one or two more people with him to speak with the pastor (Matthew 18:16).

However, many pastors develop habits where it’s difficult for them to change overnight.

I was never very good at home visitation.  When I had to visit shut-ins, neither one of us enjoyed the experience very much.  When I stopped by to see newcomers who had visited our church the previous Sunday, they rarely came back.

The boomers didn’t want a pastor coming to their house.  (There were too many things to hide before he got there.)  But many in the builder generation expected that kind of personal attention from their pastor.

If I was asked to visit in homes, I could probably do it for a week or two, but since it’s unnatural for me, I’d find reasons to quit doing it as soon as possible.

It takes time for pastors to change their behavior or learn new skills.  Board members need to realize that.  Maybe the pastor’s progress could be measured on a monthly or quarterly basis.  But give him a chance to change first – and give him points for trying.

Fourth, realize your pastor is unique.  Many Christians have a favorite pastor from their past.  Maybe he led them to Christ, or baptized them, or married them, or counseled them – and he became their pastor forever.

But then he resigned or retired, and while he’s not around anymore, precious memories still linger.

There are times when a board member wants to terminate a pastor because he isn’t Pastor So-and-So from my past.  Over the years, many people have told me about their favorite pastor.  At first, I felt a little intimdated, but then I realized that it’s okay to form a special bond with a man of God.  It’s one of the primary ways God causes us to grow.

But on some level, there are people – even board members – who become upset or even angry with their current pastor because he doesn’t do things the way their favorite pastor did.  They canonize his personality and his methodology.

If this could be the case with you, I beg you: please ask God and a few loved ones around you to tell you the truth as to whether you’re being fair toward your pastor or not.

Because even if you get rid of him, that favorite pastor is not coming back.

Finally, take time to pray that your pastor changes.  Many board members come out of the business world, and prayer is not a business principle.  But prayer works wonders – even with a pastor.

Instead of persuading fellow board members to fire the pastor, why not ask the King of Kings to change him instead?

I once had a pastor who had an annoying habit.  I prayed fervently for him without talking to him about it.  He not only changed, he told the church he had changed!

That principle isn’t in Good to Great, is it?

But it is in the Bible!

Let me put this in a nutshell: before relying on business practices or playing church politics, resolve that you will handle any problems with your pastor in a biblical and spiritual manner.

If you do, the odds are good that you won’t have to terminate your pastor because he’ll respond to you in kind.

Think about it.

Read Full Post »

Back in the 1960s, a new kind of doll hit popular culture: the bobblehead.  The first such dolls produced were of baseball players Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, and Roberto Clemente.  Later in the decade, dolls were produced of The Beatles.

As a kid, I distinctly remember bobblehead dolls of the Los Angeles Dodgers, who had the best promotions in all of sports. The head on the bobblehead is oversized and, connected to its small body by a spring, continually nods.  The doll never says “no” but always says “yes.”

The only bobblehead I own is of former Oakland A’s pitcher Vida Blue, and I’ve been looking to give it away for quite some time.  If you want it, you can come over to my house and claim it.  (I met Vida Blue in Anaheim in 1972, the year after he won the Cy Young Award as the best pitcher in baseball.  I asked him to pose for a photo.  He stuck his tongue out at me.  I still have the photo.  But you can’t have the photo.  It’s precious.)

Anyway, I digress.  The reason I bring up bobbleheads is because some Christian leaders resemble them.  Just as the bobblehead constantly nods its head in approval, so too these leaders always seem to agree with the other leaders around them.

Where can one find Christian bobbleheads in a church setting?

They can be found almost anywhere that decisions are made: on the programming team, among adult youth leaders, on any ministry team, and on the church board.  Especially on the church board.

Church boards – whether they’re called elders, deacons, servant-leaders, or the Board of Directors – usually have lots of decisions to make and not much time to make them.  I’ve attended several hundred board meetings in my time (violins, please) and one of the constant themes is that “we’ve got to hurry up and get out of here by 9:00 pm” or whatever time is set.  (11:00 is more like it.)  The chairman introduces an issue, board members ask questions and discuss it, and the board eventually comes to consensus.

When the issue is relatively insignificant, this approach works well.  But the more an issue impacts the entire church family, the more time the board needs to take in deliberation.  It’s irresponsible for a board to make a quick decision, for example, over changing the times of the services or borrowing money to construct a worship center.  The greater the impact on the entire church family, the longer the board needs to take in making a call.

This principle is especially relevant when it comes to two issues: hiring and terminating the head pastor.  Let’s talk about the latter decision.

Every month in our country, 1,300 pastors are involuntarily terminated from their positions.  Some deserve it, being guilty of incompetence, immorality, or stubbornly refusing to repent of wrongdoing.  But in the great majority of cases, the template goes like this:

One board member has it in for the pastor.  Let’s call him the gunslinger.  For a year, he tries to wear down the pastor through controlling tactics, insinuations, harassment, and a lack of support.  He privately makes his case with the other board members between meetings in the church parking lot, during private meals, and at “secret meetings” in a restaurant or someone’s  home.  The gunslinger can’t seem to find anything the pastor does right and concludes that the board must “shoot him” to save the church.  When questioned about the propriety of such an undertaking, the gunslinger produces a Wanted poster with a list of charges against the pastor (and often his family) that indicate the pastor has to go, the sooner the better.  It’s never the quality of the charges but the sheer quantity that ultimately persuades the other board members.

If you’re wondering about how in touch with reality I am, let me quote from Guy Greenfield’s book The Wounded Minister:

This person “will lead a campaign of attack on the minister.  This person is not trying to give constructive criticism.  Even if some valid points are offered, his goal is nothing short of control, no matter what it may cost the minister or the church.  The antagonist is so full of rage that he feels compelled to attack the ‘enemy’ (the minister) until he is destroyed (terminated and eliminated from the scene).

This person probably has a ‘God-problem.’  He feels some deep-seated anger toward God, for some reason out of his past experiences.  Because it is difficult to show anger directly toward God, the pathological antagonist chooses the minister, the ‘man of God’ as his target.  Sometimes this anger is guilt-driven (possibly due to some hidden sin, such as an extramarital affair, for example).  His antagonism is an attempt to move the spotlight off his own sins and onto another.  Therefore the attack is a smoke screen to cover his own moral indiscretions … His stated reasons for opposition are a ruse for his own hidden agenda.  What he really wants is power, control, status, and authority.”

How does the gunslinger get away with his diabolical plan?

A while back, I bought a DVD collection of the classic TV show Bonanza.  The collection contains more than 30 episodes of the show from the first several years, all of them very, very good (even though they’re not remastered.  But what do you expect for $6.99?)  In some of the stories, there’s a bad guy who wants to kill Pa or Hoss or Hop Sing, but he never tries to go gunnin’ for them by himself.  He’s always got some not-so-bright “boys” who are willing to do whatever he tells them to do.  No matter how bad his plan is for stealing Ben’s cattle or grabbing some Ponderosa land or stealing Little Joe’s girl, the boys are in the background nodding their heads.

In other words, they’re bobbleheads.

Church boards have bobbleheads, too, or else the gunslinger couldn’t get away with anything.  They fail to realize that just as the gunslinger has been working on the pastor for a long time, so too he’s been working on them.  Greenfield again:

This person “tends to attract certain followers.  Without them, the antagonist’s efforts would fizzle.  He usually does not have the courage to go it alone.  He needs followers to bolster his campaign against the minister.  My antagonist was calculating in his enlistment of a small band of followers.  Each had a personal ax to grind with regard to what was happening in the church.  Each had a reputation for being a severe critic of former ministers.  All but one was a natural follower in personality makeup.”

In other words, they were bobbleheads.

Greenfield goes on:

“Four others were enlisted to join in this effort.  They began to hold secret meetings at Jim’s home on Wednesday evenings (at the same time the congregation was scheduled to hold midweek prayer meetings at the church building).  So Jack won over five men and their wives to concur with his accusations, none of which was true.  All of these men were deacons [board members].  Then, one by one, a few of their longtime friends, nondeacons, were persuaded to see things at church their way.”

The bobbleheads on the board kept nodding their heads in time with each of the gunslinger’s accusations.  They nodded so much that it became trendy to do so around town … er, the church.  Soon others began to “do the bobblehead” as well.  Greenfield concludes:

“In a few months, they knew they could count on at least 30 church members to vote with them regarding the minister’s future.  In the final showdown business meeting, they were able to muster some 50 members to vote with them.  There were some 135 members who voted to sustain the minister.  These were not good odds for future unity and fellowship in the church.  Therefore, I chose to take early retirement.  My health was too fragile to continue living with this kind of stress.”

The gunslinger never has to actually fire a shot at the pastor.  Just the threat of a shot causes most pastors to head for the high grass.  “C’mon, pastor, draw!”  But most pastors aren’t trained to shoot, especially at church leaders.  The gunslinger knows this and figures that even if the pastor tries to shoot, he’ll fire blanks – or wing the associate pastor.

Greenfield then asks the question that I’ve often wondered about.  Maybe you have, too.  “Now why would a handful of malcontents, led by a pathological antagonist, be able to enlist followers in a crusade based on a combination of falsehoods and half-truths?”  In other words, how does the gunslinger enlist bobbleheads to his cause?

If you have some ideas, I’d love to hear them.  I will share my own ideas next time.

Read Full Post »

What’s wrong with this picture?

When I was fourteen years old, my family attended a church where we really liked the pastor.  He was a good preacher and liked to sing so much that he sometimes put on a robe and sang with the choir.  On occasion, he’d even end a message by singing a song like “He Could Have Called Ten Thousand Angels.”  (A good song, by the way.)  In my mind, I can still hear and see him singing it more than forty years later.

After that pastor resigned to became an executive at a Christian college, the church quickly called a new pastor – maybe too quickly.  To be honest, our family didn’t like the new pastor very much.  The previous pastor had curly hair while the new pastor had a crew cut.  The previous pastor came off as very loving while the new pastor seemed a bit harsh.  The previous pastor’s personality was safely predictable while the new pastor’s was unknown and so erratic by comparison.  The previous pastor had supervised a well-liked church staff but the new pastor abruptly fired a popular, long-standing staff member (who happened to be a single woman) soon after he took office.  The firing did not go over well with a number of key people in the church.

The whispering started.

Somewhere along the line, I became aware of conversations that others were having about the new pastor – the sort of discussions that remained private inside my own family.  These conversations were just “in the air.”  Since my family was far removed from the church’s inner circle, I’m not sure we knew much about what was really going on – we just knew we didn’t like the new pastor.

Why not?

Well, for starters, he wasn’t the former pastor.  That wasn’t his fault, but it was a fact.  The congregation needed time to process their grief in losing their old pastor, but someone (foolishly, in my opinion) insisted that the church call a pastor quickly (probably out of anxiety).  This guaranteed that the former pastor and the new pastor would be unfavorably compared, and the former pastor (who was becoming a saint in some eyes) completely outshone the new pastor (who couldn’t compete with a ghost).

In addition, he fired a popular staff member.  She had been a fixture at the church for years.  She had a host of supporters.  She was intelligent, funny, strong – and, as I recall, a bit brassy.  Maybe she needed to go, I don’t know.  But to fire her so soon after taking office backfired on the pastor.  I didn’t know any of the facts, but I sided with her.  Why?  Because I knew her a little and liked her – but I didn’t know the new pastor at all, and, truth be told, I didn’t like him.  My dislike of him wasn’t based on anything substantial – it was just an impression from hearing him preach.

And, of course, since our friends didn’t like him, neither did we.  While this is the lamest reason of all, it happens all the time in churches.

Eventually, the new pastor resigned in the middle of a heated business meeting.  He moved to the East Coast and, as often happens with pastors who go through such experiences, he left pastoral ministry for good.  He became a Christian counselor and did some writing – and one of the articles he wrote gave his side of the conflict.  (This was probably 25 years ago.)

After I read his article, I felt ashamed.

However small my participation – and at 14, I didn’t have any church clout – I saw what can happen in a church when a group of people make up their mind that they don’t like a pastor.

And that’s what it all comes down to most of the time: whether or not we like a pastor.  And when we don’t like him – or we feel he doesn’t like us – we feel free to destroy him.

It makes me want to weep, not only for my own evil heart, but for the entire Christian community.

This is why Paul writes what he does in 1 Timothy 5:21.  After laying out clear instructions for receiving charges against a pastor/elder, Paul expresses himself in the strongest possible language.  Please read it several times and slowly:

“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.”

Paul says that when the leaders/people of a church take action to correct a pastor for misconduct, all of heaven is watching.  Since the Father and the Son and angelic beings are scrutinizing the way that church leaders/people handle charges against a pastor, the accusers/investigators need to do everything God’s way. 

And then Paul adds two phrases that are nearly identical: such correction is to be done “without partiality” and never “out of favoritism.”  In other words, it’s immaterial whether or not we like a pastor when people make accusations against him.  We must use impartial biblical principles in such situations.

But how often is that done?

Not very often.  Rather than using biblical principles, the three primary ways that pastors are corrected in churches are (a) business practices, (b) church politics, and (c) the law of the jungle.

While it’s helpful for a church to know the best business practices for correcting executives/employees, the phrase “these instructions” in 1 Timothy 5:21 does not refer to secular company policies, but Paul’s directives in verses 19 and 20.  In fact, since Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, biblical directives must trump business practices every single time.

If a staff member or board member is being corrected for some offense, the pastor is usually able to provide a biblical perspective on how to handle matters.  But if the pastor is being corrected, business practices are usually substituted for biblical directives.  Why?  Because a pastor is usually accountable to a board, and board members fall back on what they know best: business.  But in so doing, they ignore 1 Timothy 5:19-21 to their peril, the very thing Paul warns against in verse 21.  When pastors utilize biblical principles during conflict while boards fall back on business practices, the chasm between the two groups will grow even wider – and little will be resolved.

In such situations, Christian leaders also resort to church politics.  Before engaging in biblical correction, leaders try and anticipate what might happen if they make certain decisions.  They guess who might leave the church if they discipline or terminate a pastor – and how many.  They obtain a membership roster (in a church governed by a congregation) and try and guess who might vote which way.  They enter into discussions with former pastors and denominational executives and key staff and opinion makers in the congregation to insure they have their support if a showdown occurs.  While some of the above ideas have their place, we must remember that Paul said to “keep these instructions without partiality.”  He said nothing about playing politics.

Then there’s the law of the jungle.  In the absence of using any biblical counsel regarding the correction of spiritual leaders, the leaders/people of a church may degenerate into immature nastiness and pettiness.  Leaders resort to power tactics.  Individuals make anonymous phone calls or send anonymous notes embedded with threats and demands.  Mass letters and emails are distributed to people in the church who don’t even know what’s going on.  Some people call the pastor names, make exaggerated claims against him, and engage in “the politics of personal destruction.”

How petty can Christians get?  When my dad was a pastor, one of the charges leveled against him before he resigned was that he left a church party early on a Saturday night.  What was wrong with that?  (When I was a pastor, I tried not to plan anything on a Saturday night so I could be my best on Sunday.)  My father was charged with going home to write his sermon when he was simply going home to review it.  But when certain people don’t like a pastor, they will invent things and exaggerate incidents to discredit his influence in the eyes of others.

And all the while, Paul says, heaven watches – and weeps.

I once read that when Abraham Lincoln was a young man, he saw a slave being whipped unmercifully.  He told himself, “Someday, I’m going to hit that, and hit it hard.”

For decades, I’ve watched pastors and churches suffer irreparable harm because biblical principles were ignored when it came time to correct a pastor.

Like Lincoln, I want to hit that hard.

Christians speak rightfully of social justice.  (Read the Book of Amos for an eye-opening view of God’s feelings about civil and religious injustice.)  But what about ecclesiastical (church) justice?  Should we not care about righteous behavior both outside and inside the church?

And since pastors serve as the link in a church between heaven and earth as well as between a church and the culture, should we not be doubly conscientious in how we treat them, especially if and when they are charged with wrongdoing?

Paul thought so, enough to write 1 Timothy 5:19-21.  Who will teach this text to God’s people?

I hope you will.  Read it.  Understand it.  Memorize it.  Share it.

There’s even more to say about it, and I will endeavor to do that next time.

Read Full Post »