Conflict with Church Board | Restoring Kingdom Builders

Archive for the ‘Conflict with Church Board’ Category

Pastors and the One Day Contract

Posted in Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged church board and pastoral termination, forced resignation of pastors, forced termination of pastors, pastor-board conflict, pastoral termination on July 15, 2016| 4 Comments »

I have a mentor who used to be a pastor and later became a top executive with two different denominations.

When he was a pastor, he used to tell his staff, “Remember: our jobs could all be gone overnight.”

If someone had told me that before I trained to become a pastor, maybe I would have redoubled my efforts to become a math teacher.

Because from a distance, being a pastor seems like a pretty secure position.

But upon further scrutiny, the truth leans in the opposite direction: most pastors are, in the words of a pastor friend, bound to their churches by a one day contract … revocable anytime.

There are three common scenarios along this line:

First, the pastor disqualifies himself from ministry by committing a major offense.

If a pastor commits even a single act of sexual immorality, and it becomes known to the official board, that pastor will almost always be fired or asked to resign.

If a pastor commits a felonious criminal act, like grand larceny, or fraud, or assault, that could end his ministry as well.

If a pastor struggles with an ongoing sin … such as the megachurch pastor on the East Coast who resigned last Sunday because of a problem with alcohol … that can finish someone’s ministry in a particular congregation as well.

And if a pastor preaches heresy … like the pastor I heard about who started preaching universalism (the view that everybody will be saved and enter heaven in the end) … that can either get him fired or cause his church to empty out.

Most church boards are composed of spiritual individuals who know that their pastor is human and that he can get angry … suffer from depression … become exhausted … and even struggle with family issues … and yet still be a man of God who can be an effective and productive shepherd.

But when a pastor commits a major offense … and it’s discovered … he will usually either offer his resignation or be summarily dismissed.

Second, the pastor might be fired either after a worship service or during a regular/special board meeting.

I once knew a pastor who presided over a church that was growing like crazy … but he had been at the church less than two years when he was fired by the official board.

The pastor went to a regular board meeting. The elder who had his back was away on a trip. Knowing this, the other elders decided this was the time for them to make their move.

When the pastor came to the meeting, someone pushed a pre-typed resignation letter over to him.

The pastor was so shocked that he stared at it for 45 minutes.

The letter stated, in part, that he had to resign … clear out his office … turn in his keys … and cut off all contact with the people of the church.

And he would not be entitled to a final sermon or any goodbye party.

His offense?

He did things differently than the previous pastor … even though the church was doing very well.

Sometimes the signs of discontent among board members are there, but the pastor misses them.

And when they finally fire him, the pastor is genuinely shocked by their ambush.

But sometimes, the board makes a decision behind the scenes … often pushed by one of the board members, who is out for revenge … and the pastor becomes ecclesiastical toast.

Third, the pastor might be given a choice: either resign now and receive a token severance agreement, or be fired without any severance.

If the pastor is guilty of sexual immorality or criminal behavior and the board just discovered his sin, I can understand this scenario.

And if the pastor was asked to deal with an issue like alcohol abuse but he hasn’t made any progress … or refuses to change … then I can understand the church board saying, “We’ve done all we can, so we have to ask for your resignation.”

But much of the time, the board never says a word to the pastor about anything he’s done wrong … he comes to a meeting … and the board gives him this ultimatum: quit right now and we’ll pay you to leave … but if you refuse, we will fire you and you will receive nothing.

There’s a variation on this: one or two board members take the pastor out to eat or meet him in his office at church and throw down the same ultimatum.

One pastor told me that when the board asked him for his resignation, he gave it to them on the spot, walked away, and left the area as quickly as he could.

That’s one way of handling things.

But many pastors will want to know things like:

*What have I done wrong?

*Why haven’t you talked with me about this sooner?

*Why are you doing this now?

*What are you going to tell the congregation about my leaving?

*Who is really behind this power play?

The pastor can try and talk with the board about questions like these … and I think he should … because the more the pastor understands the board’s thinking, the more quickly he can heal down the road.

If the board has prepared a severance agreement they want the pastor to sign on the spot, the pastor should tell the board, “I cannot sign this agreement unless I first have it reviewed by an attorney. I will try and get back to you within a few days.”

But there’s something else the pastor can do: stand up in the meeting … walk toward the door … and tell the board, “You’ll be hearing from me soon” … and quickly leave the building.

When I went through my conflict nearly seven years ago, a church consultant asked me if our church bylaws specified a way to vote the board members out of office.

Since the bylaws didn’t envision that possibility, there wasn’t any mechanism in place for removing the board.

In my situation, I wouldn’t have done that because the board members were all duly elected by the congregation.

If a pastor is asked to resign on the spot, the best move he can make is to tell the board, “I need a few days to think and pray about this. Can I gave you an answer by Saturday?”

If the board agrees to this scenario, the pastor should assure the board that (a) he may consult with a few people from the church, but (b) he will not lead a counterattack against the board.

But many church boards don’t allow for the pastor to take a few days to make his decision because (a) they want him to leave right away; (b) they’ve already lined up somebody to speak the following Sunday; (c) they’re afraid the pastor will lead a counterattack if they give him any rope at all.

Some pastors in megachurches and larger churches sign a contract before they become the pastor. The contract spells out the various scenarios up front.

But most small church and medium-sized church pastors don’t sign such contracts and so are open to being railroaded right out of their positions.

Before Jesus went to the cross, He knew what was coming … and knew He would rise again.

Before most pastors are asked to leave, they are blindsided … and wonder if they’ll ever pastor again.

If you’re a church board member … your pastor has not committed a major offense … but you think he should leave: it’s better for the board if the pastor leaves immediately, but if he does, it may very well kill his church career … for good.

So before you make a major decision that you can’t take back, search Scripture … pray it through … consult with several church consultants/interventionists … and rid your board of every desire to exact revenge on your pastor.

And be very careful … because in a real sense … your life and your job are bound by single day contracts as well.

Read Full Post »

When Church Leaders Consult Only With Themselves

Posted in Church Coup Excerpts, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged church board and pastoral termination, church conflict consultation, forced resignation of pastors, forced termination of pastors, options for pastor-church conflict, pastor-board conflict, pastoral termination on June 24, 2016| Leave a Comment »

Twenty-five years ago, I found myself in one of the most precarious positions I’ve ever faced as a pastor.

The church I served in Silicon Valley had been struggling, and I became convinced that we needed to start over: a new church, with a new name, in a new location, with a new ministry.

This vision meant that we had to sell our church property and find a new place to meet … almost simultaneously.

After receiving congregational approval, we sold the property outright to The Salvation Army (some people must drop more than coins into those Christmas kettles) and after looking at more than thirty buildings, our leaders found a temporary place to meet … but we needed a conditional use permit first.

When we went to the planning commission, they turned us down on a 4-2 vote.

We were stunned.

Now we had to appeal to the City Council … I had to lead the effort … and I had never done anything like that before.

I pulled out all the stops. I called everyone and anyone who might be able to help. I even called the city manager of a prominent city nearby and picked his brain on how to proceed.

Then it came time to prepare packets for Council members and contact them individually.

I met with the mayor in his office.

After our presentation to the Council, we won a unanimous 7-0 vote. It was one of the great moments of my life!

The elders of that church and I had a lot to learn after our defeat before the planning commission … and after we did our homework, God blessed us with a favorable decision.

But when a church board is having trouble with their pastor … and if they’re thinking about forcing him to leave … the last thing many boards do is ask outsiders for counsel.

Why don’t boards ask for counsel?

*Some board members think, “We have to keep everything confidential. We don’t want anyone to know what’s happening between us and the pastor.” They may be concerned about their own reputations … that they won’t be perceived as competent managers or peaceful believers.

*Others boards think, “We don’t need any outside counsel. Just look at the composition of this board: a CEO, an attorney, a salesman, two small business owners, a school principal, and an accountant. We’re all professionals. We know what to do with wayward employees.”

*Still others think, “I suppose we could contact an outside consultant, but we know more about our church and our pastor than that person ever will.”

*The pastor probably knows who could be contacted for counsel, but the board won’t be inclined to consult with his network.

*And because of the nature of the conflict, the board can’t ask the pastor for help … even though he might be able to help them more than anybody else.

There are several problems with this kind of thinking among board members:

*For starters, a church is not strictly a business. While it shouldn’t be run like a bad business, the purpose of a church isn’t to make money or reward investors, but to transform people’s lives spiritually. Just because board members have experience in the “real world” doesn’t mean they understand the unique dynamics inside a congregation.

*Many people in a church view their congregation more as a family than a business. Their relationships … including their relationship with the pastor … are on their frontal lobes far more than the church’s budget or buildings. Most people will view a board-pastor clash negatively … no matter how the board frames it … because it will disrupt that “family feeling.”

*Although pastoral terminations are an increasingly common occurrence in the Christian community, the great majority of churchgoers … including board members … have never experienced the aftermath of a termination before. They may feel that they can control the narrative and keep everyone in the church united, but they are woefully unprepared for the unpredictable events that happen after the pastor leaves.

For example, I was once thinking about firing a staff member, so I consulted with an experienced pastor. He told me, “Well, after you let this person go, you’ll have three tough months, and then things will revert to normal.” But when a board dismisses a pastor, they might experience three tough years … or their church may never recover.

*Outside experts may not know much about “our church” and “our pastor,” but those who have studied even two or three terminations know infinitely more than those who have never experienced even one.

Those who contact me most often are pastors under fire … pastors who have just been terminated … and board members who are having trouble with their pastor – including those who may be thinking about forcing him to resign.

While asking questions about each situation, I am constantly amazed at how many church boards think they know what they’re doing even though they’re only consulting with themselves.

Allow me to share my experience from six-and-a-half years ago.

The conflict I experienced in my last church surfaced in October 2009. At that time:

*I had been a pastor for 35 1/2 years … 10 1/2 years in that same church.

*I had a longtime interest and passion in church conflict and pastoral termination.

*I had watched three of the pastors I served under as a staff member suffer attacks. One resigned under fire, while another was voted out of office.

*I had an extensive library on conflict and termination which I knew well … and that library grew significantly when I wrote my doctoral project.

*I had a Doctor of Ministry degree from Fuller Seminary with an emphasis on church conflict.

And yet, in the week following the surfacing of the conflict, I contacted 17 Christian leaders, asking for their counsel … including seminary professors, church consultants, megachurch pastors, and former board chairmen.

Why did I do that?

*I needed to know what was really going on. I thought I knew, but I wasn’t completely sure.

*I was too close to the situation to see things objectively. I needed the advice of people who could see both the conflict and my situation dispassionately.

*I needed to know what my next moves should be … and what I shouldn’t do or say.

*I also needed to know what might happen inside the congregation over the next few days. For example, here’s what I wrote in my book Church Coup about a conversation I had with a church consultant who has since became a mentor:

“Wilson said that when the board met with the staff … that was a serious offense in our state. If the board had acted in a similar fashion in a secular organization, the aggrieved person could have sued them for millions of dollars. Wilson also asked if I was pastor of the church founded by Norman, and when I confirmed that I was – and that the communication between us had become sparse – he wrote: ‘Does not surprise me on Norman – and I have a hunch that THEY have dialed him in!’ Wilson predicted that if the board resigned, thirty to fifty people would also leave with them, and those who were in touch with the Holy Spirit (especially those with the gift of showing mercy) would later tell me that they knew something was wrong but couldn’t put their finger on it.”

I then recounted another conversation:

“Later that morning, I had a conversation with someone (I’ll call him Richard) who runs a Christian consulting firm. Richard immediately asked me about the personal and vocational lives of the board members. He believed that what was happening in their private lives had a direct bearing on how they were handling church matters. Richard stated that many boards are struggling with three primary issues in our day: they experience fear because God is not big enough for them; they struggle with stewardship because they believe the church is ‘all about us’ and not a lost world; and they struggle with faith. Satan has figured out how to defeat us by using power as an aphrodisiac. Richard suggested that one way we could seek redress was through arbitration.”

Before a church board tries to force their pastor to quit … or fires him outright … they should consult with the following individuals:

*A labor attorney to make sure they’re “dotting their i’s” and “crossing their “t’s” legally. This should also involve a thorough discussion of any relevant passages on pastor-church conflict in the bylaws.

*A biblical expert … maybe a seminary professor … who can tell them what Scripture does and doesn’t say about terminating a pastor.

*A church consultant who is well-versed in pastoral termination who can (a) help the board decide if the pastor needs to be corrected or fired, and (b) walk the board through how to take action so there is minimal harm done to the pastor, his family, and the congregation.

*Several experienced pastors who either know what it’s like to be under fire or who have undergone termination themselves. Listening to such pastors will give the board increased sensitivity.

What about denominational executives, like a district minister?

Probably 90% of the time, they’ll side with the board instead of the pastor because (a) they just want the conflict to go away, (b) they don’t have a clue how to resolve matters, and (c) they just want to keep the money flowing from the church to district coffers.

What about contacting a former pastor from that church?

Most boards don’t know about the rivalries and jealousies between pastors from the same church. For that reason, I don’t recommend this approach.

What about contacting a board member from a church that already terminated a pastor?

If the termination was just and handled thoughtfully … maybe. But if the termination blew up in the board’s face … why go there?

How about contacting a Christian mediator?

If a board decides to go this route, they need to interview the mediator, and let the pastor interview him as well. The board cannot force a mediator down the pastor’s throat … and vice versa.

What are the benefits of a board seeking outside counsel?

*The board learns better how pastors think. For example, pastors are often thinking “outreach,” while board members are thinking “maintenance.” How tragic to force out a pastor who is just trying to take Christ’s Great Commission seriously.

*The board expands their thinking from “let’s get rid of the pastor” to “we need to keep our church healthy during this process.”

*The board learns about the pitfalls and land mines involved in terminating a pastor.

*The board will hear differing approaches … giving them better options from which to choose.

*The board will learn how their own emotional reactions can blind them to reality.

*The board will learn the importance of giving the pastor a fair and just severance package if they choose termination.

Why don’t boards seek thorough and experienced counsel more often?

*Pride. They don’t think they need any help.

*Consulting with outsiders takes time, and some board members are so anxious that they just want to get things over with.

*The board usually doesn’t have a budget for seeking outside help, but good counsel isn’t cheap. Yet spending $5,000 to $10,000 now may save the church hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next few years.

*Many boards are too incompetent to know that they aren’t competent.

Where does God factor into all this?

I left this issue until last because, in my view, many boards that struggle with their pastor don’t consult with God and then do His will … they ask God to bless their decisions and then move full speed ahead.

And that’s why God doesn’t bless them when they move to remove their pastor. They never asked God what they should do … they told God what they were going to do instead.

Personally, I think much of the time, the board wants to fire the pastor because they aren’t used to praying for him … they’re just used to complaining about him.

But if they really met and prayed for their pastor, do they expect that anything would change?

And if they don’t pray for him, what does that say about them?

Read Full Post »

Accountable Pastors, Unaccountable Boards

Posted in Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with Church Staff, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged church board accountability, pastor accountability, pastor-board conflict, pastoral termination on May 26, 2016| Leave a Comment »

A pastor friend recently send me his thoughts after an article I wrote on pastor-board conflict:

“I understand that the pastor has to have some level of accountability and I agree that this needs to be in place however; where is the level of accountability for the board??!!! Why does the board get such freedom to govern as they see fit, and the pastor bend at their beckoning call? When I first came into ministry 14 years ago, I was an idealist and wanted to touch lives, help as many people as I could, and set the world on fire for Jesus. I still have fire for Jesus, but my flame for what happens behind the scenes in churches has grown very dim. What I have discovered in my pastoral career is pastors who go into a pastorate full of desire and passion, many times must go through a board to get permission to do things in ministry. The pastor may be the public figure, but the board runs the church with little to no accountability!!”

I’ve thought long and hard about this issue since my friend sent me his comments. Here are five thoughts on this issue:

First, every church leader needs to be accountable to someone outside his/her group.

This means that:

*a ministry team leader should be accountable to a pastor … a staff member … or a board member.

*a staff member should be accountable to a higher-ranking staffer or the lead pastor.

*the pastor should report to someone … presumably the official board. (If you want a miniscule church or a church split, make the pastor directly accountable to the congregation.)

*the board should account to another person/group as well, possibly depending upon who selected the board members.

When Paul laid out the qualifications for overseers/elders in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, he meant for Timothy and Titus to select those leaders.

In our day, that’s probably the equivalent of the lead pastor choosing the board members, which seems awkward because then he’s choosing his own supervisors!

As pastor, I always had veto power over board candidates, and used it often, though I probably let a few slip through the cracks that I shouldn’t have.

But churches ruled by congregational government usually vote on or verify the board members in an annual election. It’s almost always a rubber stamp because I’ve never heard of any board candidate being voted down. Most people simply don’t know enough about the leaders who are nominated to reject them … a flaw in our systems.

Second, this “accountability system” doesn’t work in actual practice for official boards.

I served in eight churches over a 36-year period in churches that espoused congregational government.

*The pastor was always accountable to the official board.

In my case, I submitted a written report to the board at every monthly meeting for years and years. I knew that I was accountable to the board for all that I said and did. If a board member had an issue with me, they knew they could speak with me directly or ask me a question in the presence of the other board members. Because I kept the board current on my decisions and activities, I never had major problems with any boards until my last year in church ministry.

*The staff were always accountable to the lead pastor or the associate.

When I had just one or two staff members, they were always accountable directly to me as pastor. When I had as many as ten staff members, most were still accountable directly to me, although I later asked several staffers to report to the associate pastor … a mistake on my part.

*The board was accountable to the congregation on paper … but rarely if ever reported anything to the church body as a whole … which gradually makes them feel as if they’re accountable to no one but themselves.

Third, the lack of board accountability is likely a major reason why so many pastors are forced out of office in our congregations today.

Think about this: who should the official board in a church account to?

Possible answers:

*Some might say, “The board is directly accountable to God Himself.”

But then why can’t the pastor be directly accountable to God as well? As Pastor Chuck Smith from Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa used to ask pastors, “Who do you work for … the Lord or the board?”

But knowing human nature, most Christian leaders would say, “Since pastors occasionally go off track, they require immediate human accountability as well as ultimate divine accountability.”

If pastors require some level of human accountability, shouldn’t board members as well?

*Some might say, “Individual board members should be accountable to each other or to the board as a whole.”

But then why can’t staff members be accountable to each other rather than the pastor? And why can’t the youth pastor account to other staff members rather than the lead pastor?

This might work at first, but over time … if board members are only accountable to themselves … they’ll go off the rails … no matter how “spiritual” they are.

All too many do.

*Some might say, “The official board should account to the congregation as a whole.”

And I agree.

And yet … this is either done rarely or poorly in churches with congregational government.

Why is this the case?

In most of my ministries, I as pastor became the official spokesperson for the board in public. So when the board made a decision behind closed doors, I either volunteered or was assigned the duty of sharing that decision with our church family.

Sometimes I’d do that during the announcements on Sunday morning … or through an all-church email or letter … or through a handout in the Sunday bulletin.

Much of the time, I was more articulate than the chairman in public … and I had authority and credibility than most board members lacked.

But by always reporting board decisions to the church as a whole, I made a huge mistake … one that most pastors make:

My actions did not communicate to the congregation that the official board was accountable to the church as a whole.

Let’s say that the board decided that all greeters and ushers had to wear yellow shirts every Sunday, and that they wanted me as pastor to announce that decision during the next worship service.

Even if I said, “If you have any questions or comments about this decision, please contact one of our board members,” many people would be more likely to approach me because I’m the one who made the announcement.

It’s like I had an unspoken pact with the board: “You decide … I’ll announce.”

But in my mind, that seemingly insignificant pattern sends a strong message: the church board is not obligated to report their decisions to the congregation.

And that’s the problem, isn’t it?

Fourth, the presumption is that since there is only one lead pastor along with multiple board members, there’s a check-and-balance system already built into board proceedings.

But I would strongly dispute this argument because without their pastor, church boards sometimes make horrendous decisions.

Ten years ago, I took a sabbatical for six weeks, and spent an entire month in Europe.

While I was gone, something unexpected happened at church, and two staff members went to the church board with a proposal that I would not have approved.

I wasn’t around to consult, so the board made a decision … the wrong one, in my view … and when I returned home, I had to try and undo the damage that was created … but my intervention-after-the-fact ultimately made things worse … even though I handled the situation as well as possible.

I’m not saying that church boards can’t make good decisions without their pastor, but they will always make better decisions with him than without him.

But when the board tries to make decisions about their pastor in secret … and without his wisdom and experience … their decisions may be based on business experience or raw emotion (think hatred or revenge) rather than Scripture or the church’s governing documents.

For that reason … and I’m just guessing here … I’d put it this way:

*When the pastor and board make decisions together, they have a 90% success rate.

*When the board makes decisions without their pastor, they have less than a 50% success rate.

Add to that last statement a couple of spiritually immature members … a degree of high anxiety … pressure from influential or wealthy churchgoers … and the feeling of, “If we get rid of the pastor, we’re in charge of the church now!” … and you can see how many church boards can slip into “termination thinking” without knowing the pitfalls ahead.

Finally, there are three possible solutions to the issue of board accountability:

*The board needs to make every decision in conjunction with their pastor.

Not the associate pastor … not a former pastor … not another church’s pastor … but their own pastor.

But if their pastor is guilty of a major offense, then it’s appropriate for them to meet without the pastor and consult outside Christian leaders – at least five, in my view – so the board doesn’t cherry pick someone they know will agree with them.

There is safety in multiple counselors.

*The board is accountable to a Conflict Resolution Group (call them the CRG) for the way they choose to handle conflict … especially anything involving the lead pastor.

I’ve made the case for this in articles over the past few weeks, but the CRG should serve as a watchdog concerning the process that the board uses whenever they engage in conflict management with the pastor, staff, or congregation.

*The board needs to report as many decisions as possible to the congregation as a whole.

In many churches, this is done on an annual basis through a verbal or written report, but this simply isn’t adequate.

If the pastor has to account to the board at every meeting – usually monthly – then why does the board only have to account to the congregation once a year? Doesn’t that disparity lend itself to abuse?

If board members don’t interact with churchgoers regularly, they will be woefully out of touch, and in effect, minimize their chances of making God-blessed decisions.

Instead, the board should publish edited copies of their agenda before a meeting … and their minutes (edited) after a meeting … to anyone and everyone who wants a copy. (Some boards post this information on a bulletin board, but I think it’s better nowadays to send the information via email to those who request it.)

Board members also need to publish their email addresses and let people know that they will read and respond to churchgoer concerns promptly.

The very act of being accountable on a monthly basis will keep board members on their ecclesiastical toes … help take stress off the pastor … and make for a more harmonious and productive church.

And if the board ever has to dismiss the pastor, they will already have a delivery system in place for reporting to the congregation.

There is nothing worse than a board never reporting to the congregation for a year or more … and then trying to establish accountability when they announce that the pastor has left the church.

This is one reason why all hell breaks loose after a pastor leaves: the board doesn’t have a track record of credibility with the congregation.

And what many, many boards do … sad to say … is to lie about the pastor … and destroy his reputation … as a way of covering up how badly they handled the conflict.

I’d love for what I’ve written to be the beginning of an honest conversation with my readers.

What works and doesn’t work for you in what I’ve written?

Read Full Post »

When Church Leaders Give Little

Posted in Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged church board members and giving, how much should church board members give, pastors and giving, should pastors know how much board members give on May 19, 2016| Leave a Comment »

Pastor Ken had just discovered something that he didn’t want to know: most of the members of Joy Church’s governing board were giving little or nothing to the ministry.

And that information not only broke Ken’s heart … it made him angry.

It all started one July day when Amy, the church’s office manager, was supposed to mail out the giving records of every person in the church for the first six months of the year. The records were supposed to be in the mail by Friday so that churchgoers would have them in their possession by the end of the month.

But it was now Thursday, and Amy called Pastor Ken to say that she was out sick with a fever and probably wouldn’t be in on Friday, either. Wanting to run an efficient church, Ken thought for a moment and asked his good friend Steve, a trusted staff member, if he would step in and put the giving statements in the mail by late that afternoon.

Ken could have dropped everything and mailed the statements himself, but two things stopped him: first, he needed to devote the rest of the day to preparing his sermon for Sunday, and second, he had always promised himself – and others – that he would never know who gave how much to the church.

During the course of that Thursday, Ken poked his head into the office several times and asked Steve how things were going. Each time, Steve responded, “Pastor, folding the statements and putting them into envelopes is going fine, but sometimes I can’t help but notice how much people are giving to the ministry here, and it’s extremely disheartening. Many of the leaders, who have great jobs, are giving next to nothing, while some with little income seem to be giving much more generously.”

Although he didn’t want to go there, Steve’s statement piqued Ken’s curiosity.

Years before, in another church, Ken wanted to know about the giving patterns of the church’s regular attendees, so he asked the financial secretary to make a list for him. Down the first column, Ken asked that each giving unit in the church be assigned a number so he wouldn’t know their names. Then he asked for 12 more columns: one for each month of the year, accompanied by how much money each unit gave every month.

Ken still shudders when he recalls the giving patterns in that church family. He noticed that many families gave nothing during January – presumably because they were paying off their credit cards after Christmas – and that others gave virtually nothing during June, July, and August – most likely because they were financing their summer vacations with at least some of their regular giving.

When Ken received that information, he remembered a story a pastor friend had told him years before. Ken had been asked to be a guest speaker at a church, and before he went, his pastor friend told him, “You’re visiting a church where the pastor discovered that 35 members were giving a total of $50.00 per week to that ministry! The pastor exposed those non-givers and they were all voted out of membership.”

While Ken thought that approach was going too far, he thought to himself, “This is why I’ve never wanted to know how much money people give to the ministry. I’m human, and I’m afraid it would impact the way I view them.”

Ken tried to put his disappointment aside that Saturday, and he preached his heart out the following day, although many people were gone on vacation.

But after the second service, as Ken was preparing to go home, the financial secretary walked up to him, handed him a sealed envelope, and told him, “You need to see this.”

Ken waited until he got in his car before he opened the envelope. To his surprise, he had been handed the giving records of every board member and staff member for the first half of the year … and what he saw tore him up inside.

On the one hand, the staff members were giving very generously. In fact, when Ken got home, he did the math, and the staff were outgiving the board by a three-to-one ratio.

But of the nine board members, six were giving virtually nothing to the church. Out of those six, three had each given a total of $150 for those first six months … almost as if their donations had been coordinated … and one was giving just $20 per week. Three others were giving regularly … one generously … but Ken was obsessed with those six non-givers.

The next day was Monday, and Ken took an early and expanded lunch. He needed time to think. Now that he knew how little the board members were giving, what did it all mean?

Ken came to four conclusions:

First, the non-givers were not spiritual individuals.

Didn’t Paul tell Timothy in 1 Timothy 3:3 that an overseer should not be “a lover of money?” Didn’t Peter write in 1 Peter 5:2 that a church elder/leader should not be “greedy for money?”

Ken knew there was a direct correlation between spirituality and giving … that those who give to God are putting Him first, and must trust Him to take care of their needs … and that those who don’t give are often confessing that money means more to them than God. Didn’t Jesus say we can’t serve two masters?

Ken believed strongly that spiritual leaders … including pastors, staff, and official board members … need to be examples rather than exceptions.

This was true for church attendance … serving in ministries … and giving financially.

Once or twice every year, Ken preached on biblical giving, and when he did, he told his congregation that he and his wife had tithed for years, and if anyone wanted proof, they could come up to him after the service and he would show them his checkbook.

Ken assumed that when he did that, the staff and board members could stand right there with him and do the same thing … but now he knew that most of the board members couldn’t … not because they didn’t make enough money, but because they weren’t spiritual enough.

And yet, by virtue of their position on the board, everyone assumed they were.

Second, the non-givers were not behind the church’s mission or Ken’s ministry.

In his mind, Ken wasn’t giving to keep the doors of his church open. He was giving to a mission, not an institution.

But by the same token, those non-giving board members were silently saying, “We do not stand behind our mission or our pastor.”

Ken remembered one email he received from the person who volunteered to head up the refreshment ministry. This person told Ken that a board member had approached her the previous Sunday and said, “The budget for refreshments is gone for the year, so there’s no more money for food between services.”

This information startled Ken because the board had never made such a decision … and because he knew the person serving refreshments was funding the ministry entirely from her own pocket.

To Ken, that refreshment ministry was vital, because guests would stay after the service … enjoy a treat … talk with Ken or other staff members … and be invited to return. Much of the church’s outreach was facilitated by those conversations around the refreshment tables.

Ken believed that money was just a tool to fulfill the church’s mission, but he was now discovering that for most board members, money assumed a far greater importance.

Third, those stingy board members were impacting the giving of others … directly or indirectly.

Ken and his wife had determined early in their ministry that they would tithe ten percent of their income … on the gross, not the net … because they wanted God to bless the gross, not just the net. And although they had gone through many hard times, the Lord had been faithful, so they never stopped giving.

Ken and his wife were giving around 12% of their income … well over a thousand dollars … on a monthly basis. He assumed that the nine board members were right there with him … but now he knew that most of them weren’t.

The church was going through a hard time financially, and Ken wondered why. But now he knew that if all the board members gave generously, the shortfall would be wiped out in no time.

Years before, Ken had learned that “like produces like” … that the lifestyle patterns of church leaders eventually rub off on much of the congregation.

So even though the non-giving board members assumed that no one knew what they gave to the ministry, their stingy stances were bound to impact the congregation through their attitudes, conversations and decisions.

Finally, Ken now understood why the board wanted to cut back on spending rather than expand the income base.

Ken’s bent was to “grow the ministry.” He believed that when the church was trusting God and taking risks, people would be attracted to the church, and they would eventually become givers.

For most of that year, the board’s bent was to “cut the budget.” They didn’t even consider growing more givers. They just wanted to keep trimming the spending.

Ken knew that the non-givers … who outnumbered the givers two to one … would always vote to cut back spending because they didn’t want to increase their giving to the church.

If they were all tithing, that would have been one thing … but only one-third of them were even in the ballpark. In fact, what Ken was giving to the ministry amounted to more than what any seven members combined were giving.

So most of the board members wanted to shrink spending … and cut the budget … so they could maintain their own meager giving patterns.

During that time, Ken endured long board meetings where the board’s mindset was, “Don’t spend money … don’t try anything new … don’t take risks.”

Ken couldn’t live like that. He knew that mindset would send the church into maintenance mode, and the church would begin a death spiral.

While sitting at a budget planning meeting several months later, Ken listened to various board members and their gloomy financial scenarios, and it began to dawn on him.

The board was no longer following his leadership.

Ken also wondered if some or all of the non-givers weren’t contributing so they could squeeze him out as pastor by claiming that his ministry wasn’t producing enough income.

Suddenly, Ken realized that the information he had providentially acquired was not only a sign that the board wasn’t behind the mission, but that his ministry at Joy Church was in jeopardy.

And Ken was right. The following month, the board covertly initiated a plan to push out their pastor … and let the biggest non-giver become their leader.

How do you interpret what happened to Pastor Ken?

Read Full Post »

Strengthening Your Church’s Immune System, Part 2

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, Please Comment!, tagged biblical principles on church conflict, confidentiality and church conflict, pastoral termination, predictable times for church conflict, preventing church conflict on May 11, 2016| 1 Comment »

How much do you like to play chess?

One summer, between eighth and ninth grades, I played 97 games of chess with an older friend. As I recall, I won 49, he won 45, and there were three stalemates.

Since he was in the high school chess club and knew all my tricks, I had to prepare myself for long games, which meant that I had to learn how to set up a defense to protect my key pieces, especially the King and Queen.

In the same way, a church needs to learn how to protect their pastor(s) from attack, and to prepare a long-term defense plan.

In my last article, I mentioned five ways that church leaders can protect their church from the inevitability of internal conflicts. (You can access that article by clicking on the green link above and to the left of the title.)

Let me share the last five ways with you:

HOW CAN YOU STRENGTHEN THE IMMUNE SYSTEM OF YOUR CHURCH?

Sixth, create a special document that specifies how to handle conflicts with the pastor (Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Tim. 5:19-21).

Most churches lack this document. If your church decides to create a Conflict Resolution Group, this could be among their first assignments.

It should be biblically-based, conform to labor law, be consistent with the church’s governing documents, and aim to treat the pastor fairly and justly.

If an individual, a leader, or a group in the church makes accusations against a pastor, the governing board should determine the severity of the charges:

*Forgive citations: these are petty, personal issues people have with the pastor (Prov. 19:11; Matt. 23:23-24). The board should say, “This is such a silly charge that you either need to forgive the pastor, pray for him, or let this go. We won’t pursue this any more.” The great majority of accusations against a pastor fall into this “citation” category.

*Confront misdemeanors: this is where the pastor hurt or offended someone personally or where he committed a minor offense while carrying out his ministry (Luke 17:3-4). The proper way to deal with a minor offense is to speak with the pastor directly about it.

*Investigate felonies: this involves serious charges against the pastor, especially involving heresy, sexual immorality, or criminal behavior (Deut. 19:15-21).

If the pastor is accused of a felony, the board should do an investigation and (a) gather evidence; (b) meet with witnesses; and (c) decide if the charges are legitimate or illegitimate.

If they are illegitimate, the accusers should ask the pastor for forgiveness or leave the church, and the board should insist on this. If the pastor’s accusers don’t admit they’re wrong, they’ll just create more charges down the road.

If they appear to be legitimate, the board should set up a meeting between the accusers and the pastor. The pastor must be allowed to face his accusers.

Once this meeting is held, the board must decide the future of the pastor and his accusers in the congregation. Aim for restoration first (Gal. 6:1), removal last.

Seventh, remind leaders that conflict is likely to break out at certain predictable times:

Much of the time in church life, the pastor and staff know that conflict will surface at specific times. For example:

*When the pastor/leaders are initiating change. This is because church leaders have taken a long time to study the changes but they haven’t allowed enough time for people to share feedback and adjust to the changes themselves.

*Easter/Christmas seasons. This is primarily because everyone wants their church to look good on the major Christian holidays and this causes people to become highly anxious. It’s also because people bring their own personal stress over the holiday to church.

*Budget time. This is because the annual church budget determines a church’s values and priorities (“Oh no, the youth ministry budget got slashed while the pastor’s slush fund was doubled”) and because people become anxious about the church’s ability to reach their targeted income.

*When changing the worship service. Despite the fact that the New Testament never mentions even one Sunday morning worship service … and therefore, churches are free in the Lord to plan their own … some people will react negatively and emotionally to any change that they and their friends do not like.

*The addition of a new generation. How many churches have made specific plans to reach Millennials? What is your church doing to reach them? Just think about the changes you’d have to make … and envision the conflict those changes would provoke.

*The addition or removal of staff. “Why did we hire him? I don’t like the guy.” “Why did they let Pastor Brian go? He was always very nice to me.” Those statements alone speak volumes as to how churchgoers view staff members. While I loved adding new staff, I hated letting anybody go because most of the fallout would be directed at me as pastor.

*When the church is shrinking. This is because people don’t want to invest their time, energy, and money in a sinking ship … and because some will pin the blame for decline on one person: the lead pastor.

*When the church is growing. This may sound surprising, but many pastors are ousted because they were too successful. Many churchgoers … especially long-time leaders … would rather be large fish in a small pond than smaller fish in a larger pond. And when they discover that some of their power is to be shared or taken away by new people, they often rebel.

Eight, practice openness about official church matters while maintaining confidentiality concerning the issues in people’s lives (1 Cor. 1:10-17; 3:1-9; 6:12-19).

During a major conflict, church leaders usually stay tight-lipped and say little or nothing to churchgoers about what’s happening.

But I believe that leaders should share as much as they can, not as little as possible, because as the saying goes, you are as sick as your secrets.

*Your church should have at least one congregational/business meeting annually. The purpose of this meeting is for the church to vote on new board members and next year’s budget.

*Your congregation should also schedule periodic informational meetings (like a town hall meeting) where the pastor and church leaders can provide updates and receive feedback without the pressure of any voting. Two meetings a year sounds reasonable.

*The pastor, staff, and board should be transparent with church members about everything that involves the church as an institution: attendance, weekly giving, the budget, and policies. Membership has its privileges.

*Everyone in the church should know how to contact the key leaders. Their pictures should be on a wall someplace, and their email addresses should be published.

*The church board should report to the congregation in some fashion as often as the lead pastor has to report to the board. You can’t have an accountable pastor and an unaccountable board. It’s a scenario for disaster.

I learned this adage for church leaders from Dr. Archibald Hart: “We don’t have secrets, we do keep confidences.”

Ninth, practice periodic “conflict drills.”

My wife and I run a preschool in our home, and once a month, we have to do a fire drill. (In fact, we just did one within the past hour!) When the alarm sounds, the children must exit through the front door … even if they have one shoe on and one shoe off … and walk to the fire hydrant along the rim of our cul-de-sac as a meeting place.

In the same way, a pastor and a governing board should run one or two “conflict drills” every year … unannounced … so both parties can evaluate how they handle conflict.

Here’s an example:

*A board member hears that several church leaders are openly complaining about the pastor.

*The board member contacts the complainer and says: “If you are upset about policy matters, please speak with anyone who made the policy (usually board members). If you are upset with the pastor personally, please speak with him directly, pray for him, or let it go. Otherwise, we’re not going to entertain your complaints.”

*The board determines the severity of the complaint (citation, misdemeanor, felony) and acts accordingly.

*Consult with the Conflict Resolution Group and make sure that the ten principles and the governing documents are followed.

*The pastor must be allowed to face his accusers.

*The pastor/board contacts (a) a church consultant; (b) a conflict manager; (c) a Christian mediator; (d) a denominational executive for counsel.

*The board makes a decision and announces it to the appropriate parties.

Create your own steps if you’d prefer, but I believe that periodic conflict drills can be a lifesaver for a congregation.

Tenth, implement these five biblical principles for preventing church conflict:

*Talk directly to those you’re upset with rather than telling others about them (Prov. 11:13; 16:28; 18:8; 20:19; 1 Tim. 3:11; 5:13; James 4:11-12; 3 John 9-10).

*Share your frustrations with the appropriate spiritual leader rather than complaining indiscriminately (Num. 14:1-4; Luke 15:1-2; Phil. 2:14; Jude 16).

*Refuse to allow people to drag you into a dispute between two parties (called “triangulation”) (Luke12:13-14; 22:1-6).

*Deal with offenses as they arise rather than collecting them and dumping them on someone (called “gunnysacking”) all at once (Matt. 18:15; 1 Cor. 13:5; Eph. 4:26-27).

*Report those who attack and conspire against church leaders (Rom. 16:17; Titus 3:10-11).

Since implementing any or all of these ten immune system strengtheners is a lot of work, a pastor would be well-served to implement one or two of them every year.

If the pastor doesn’t initiate ideas like these, when a major conflict surfaces – especially if the pastor is attacked – the law of the jungle is likely to take effect.

Depending upon the level of emotion involved, people may choose sides … define enemies … ignore Scripture … and do anything and everything to remove their pastor from office.

In the process, the church will be destroyed for the foreseeable future, and can only survive intact if there’s a resurrection years later. Not pretty.

Which of my suggestions resonate with you?

Read Full Post »

Strengthening Your Church’s Immune System, Part 1

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, Please Comment!, tagged choosing church board members, choosing church leaders, creating church mission/vision statements, pastoral termination, preventing church conflict on May 5, 2016| Leave a Comment »

I recently conducted a workshop at the Christian Leadership Training Association Convention in Pasadena, California, on the topic, “Strengthening Your Church’s Immune System.”

DSCN1903

The goal of my workshop was to present ten practical ideas designed to prevent most conflicts in Christian churches.

A severe conflict can damage a church, its leaders, and its people for years. The trauma of a major conflict wreaks havoc with personal relationships, church budgets, pastoral careers, and spiritual lives.

So long before a church experiences serious conflict, the pastor and church leaders should discern, model, teach, and implement healthy, biblical behaviors for resolving differences.

And the best way to manage and resolve conflicts in churches is to prevent them before they escalate.

For a church to grow today, a pastor must initiate change … which involves taking risks … which provokes anxiety in some people … which leads to complaining … which usually focuses on the pastor … which can lead to antagonism, plots, secret meetings, accusations, demands, threats, church splits, forced resignations, and ultimately, a decimated congregation.

I believe that pastors must implement these strategies over time to protect their churches form internal attacks – as well as the pastoral position – or a major conflict can wipe out a congregation for years.

HOW CAN YOU STRENGTHEN THE IMMUNE SYSTEM OF YOUR CHURCH?

First, identify and communicate why your church exists and where it is going.

Many of the conflicts I experienced in my first ten years of pastoral ministry were related to our church’s direction … or lack thereof. I had a mental picture of where I wanted those churches to go but I didn’t articulate it clearly and concisely, and consequently, major conflict resulted on two occasions.

Your mission is your church’s overarching purpose, the reason you exist.

Your vision is your church’s preferred future by a certain date; the direction you’re going.

Let me share four thoughts about mission and vision – and I have done what I’m suggesting:

*Utilize a bottom-up approach. Let the people of your congregation have input into the creation of your mission and vision statements. Avoid using a top-down approach where the pastor rams through his ideas without congregational buy-in.

Start by asking your congregation four open-ended questions on a handout, such as:

What do you like about our church?
What are our strengths as a congregation?
Where can we improve?
What should our church look like in five years?

Reserve 10-15 minutes during a worship service to do this. Let people write whatever they want. Ask them to turn in their surveys anonymously.

Then choose a mission/vision team to compile the responses. Ask the team to meet, maybe on a Saturday morning. Share the responses. Look for patterns. Create draft statements.

Let the pastor refine the language. Send the statements back to the mission/vision team for further input. When the process is complete, the board should officially approve the statements.

*Create compelling statements. Make them shorter rather than longer. The trend today is to have mission statements that are ten words or less so they can be remembered.

“Loving Jesus and others” is boring and vague. “To transform our families and communities for Jesus” is exciting and unifying. Make them simple but somewhat edgy.

*Announce the statements to the church in final form. Post them everywhere: your lobby, website, bulletin, classrooms. The pastor must refer to them often … at least once a month.

*Every consequent decision will flow from your mission/vision statements which may relieve as many as 90% of your church’s “problems.” Those who don’t like the direction – because they wanted to turn your church into Lakewood West or Saddleback North – will be forced to get with the program or leave the church.

Yes, some churches grow without those statements, and some churches that have mission/vision statements never go anywhere. But people want to know, “What’s the plan?” Growth is intentional, not accidental. Without a clear direction, your church will drift.

Second, choose only leaders (pastor/staff/board) who follow and embody Scripture (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).

It’s well-known in evangelical circles that church leaders should be biblically-qualified according to Paul’s lists in the Pastoral Epistles. But selecting leaders of high character doesn’t prevent a church from experiencing a horrific conflict. I know all too well.

*It is crucial that every leader embrace the church’s mission and vision statements. My failure to nail this down was a primary factor in why major conflict surfaced in my last ministry. I assumed that board members were with me without ever asking them directly. Board members can smile when their pastor is present and stab him in the back when he’s absent.

*It is essential that prospective leaders are interviewed (maybe by the pastor and board chairman) and that after they take office, receive training (at least quarterly) and undergo periodic evaluations. (Either every major leader should be evaluated or nobody should be evaluated.)

*The pastor should check with the financial secretary and make sure that any prospective board members are regular, generous givers to the ministry. The pastor can do this by asking the person who knows the givers and their amounts, “Just let me know if this person is a stingy giver … an average giver … or a generous giver.” Believe me, you don’t want any stingy givers on your board because they will tend to shoot down budget increases and special projects because they won’t want to give themselves. You only want regular givers handling church finances.

*It is better to have nobody than the wrong person in leadership. Why? Because it can take a long time to get rid of the wrong person … and there is a price to be paid for doing that.

*It is better to have just a few qualified leaders than any non-qualified leaders. If the church’s governing documents state that you need to have a minimum of seven board members, but you can only find four that are qualified, just go with four. If you don’t, the other three “fill-ins” will kill you.

Third, ask your leaders to study and summarize the biblical principles for conflict resolution.

I believe that the lead pastor in a church must take the initiative to prevent major conflicts from surfacing. One way to do that is to hold regular meetings involving every key leader in your church: staff members, board members, ministry team/committee leaders, small group leaders … and to broaden the ownership base by making the group larger rather than smaller.

The meetings can be held monthly or quarterly … maybe after the last service on Sunday morning, which means you’ll have to provide lunch … but it’s essential that they be held.

This article I wrote several weeks ago describes the process of formulating these principles:

Preventing a Major Conflict in Your Church

The aim of such a process is to create a one-page document stating Ten Principles for Resolving Conflict at _________ Church that should be posted in many rooms all over the church. (Just try and envision the rooms where conflict surfaces, like the church office, the associate pastor’s office, the board room, the kitchen … you get the idea.)

Fourth, create a Conflict Resolution Group inside your church of at least three strong, wise, and healthy individuals.

The reason I advocate a CRG is because when a pastor is attacked, there are usually some board members and/or staff members who are involved in trying to oust the pastor.

And when this happens, they almost always use shortcuts to expedite his departure.

They ignore Scripture … the church’s governing documents … labor law … and common decency because they have their eye on one goal: the pastor’s speedy exit … and they are anxious until “the deed is done.”

*The CRG’s job is to make sure biblical principles and processes are followed whenever a conflict surfaces, not to determine an outcome. They make sure that the pastor is treated justly and fairly at all times. They watch over the entire congregation, but engage in special surveillance over the board and staff.

*CRG members should be voted on by the congregation, making them accountable to the whole church. If the board appoints the CRG, it can just disband the group should the board plan to take action to force out the pastor. But if the CRG reports to the congregation, the board and staff may think twice about railroading the pastor unfairly.

*Terms should be for 1-3 years. Consider especially former board members … retired pastors … and people who work in human resources.

*Make provision for them to receive training, such as that offered by Peacemaker Ministries in Colorado Springs. Their website is http://peacemaker.net

Realize that Peacemaker University at its lower levels centers upon how to resolve conflicts between two individuals. I have taken their course on coaching people to resolve conflicts.

*The penalty for violating the CRG’s directives is church discipline and possible expulsion. For example, there might be a statement in the church’s governing documents that if the CRG rules that the board didn’t use the approved process for dealing with the pastor, the board could be suspended or must resign en masse. The CRG cannot function effectively unless they can recommend discipline to the congregation.

Fifth, update your church’s governing documents (constitution/bylaws) every five years.

As churches change, their governing documents should keep pace. While I believe that church constitutions and bylaws should be slaves, not masters, whenever a conflict breaks out, the leaders and congregation must abide by the latest version.

*Insure that your governing documents align with your ten principles for resolving conflict. (Covered under the third step above.)

*Make sure you specify the pathway to remove the pastor from office and to remove troublesome board members and staff members as well.

*If a major conflict ever breaks out, some people will become so reactive that they will resort to “the law of the jungle” to win. If your governing documents are clear, they may think twice.

*If your church is ever sued, and a judge takes the case, the judge will decide for the party that most closely followed the governing documents.

I know this seems like a lot of work, but it can be implemented over time.

In fact, let me go further: if a pastor plans on making changes in his congregation, he should implement as many of these strategies as possible first.

The best time to prepare for war is during a time of peace.

I’ll share the remaining five ways to strengthen your church’s immune system next time.

Read Full Post »

Removing a Pastor Wisely

Posted in Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with the Pastor, Forgiveness and Reconciliation among Christians, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged correcting a pastor, disciplining a pastor, pastoral termination, restoring a pastor, severance package for pastors on April 15, 2016| 2 Comments »

A friend sent me an article yesterday about a well-known megachurch pastor (although he’s not someone I’m familiar with) who was removed from office by the governing board of his church for “ongoing sinful behavior” over “the past few years.”

Here’s the article:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/april/darrin-patrick-removed-acts-29-megachurch-journey.html

When I read the article, I was impressed by the way the board handled the situation.

In my experience, whenever a pastor is terminated or forced to resign, the board often handles matters poorly. The board identifies the pastor as their enemy, exaggerates any charges against him, and either fires him outright or forces him to quit.

But the board mentioned in this article, in my view, seemed to do everything in a biblical and healthy manner.

Let me highlight five things that this board did right:

First, the board spoke with their pastor directly about their concerns.

Don’t all boards do this?

No, they don’t.

Too many times, church boards never tell their pastor what they’re seeing or hearing in his life or ministry that bothers them. They remain silent, hold a secret meeting without the pastor present, detail all his faults, conclude he has to go, and assign someone to tell him he’s fired … or agree to tell him together at the next board meeting.

Individual board members might tell their spouses how they feel about their pastor … or they might tell certain friends in the church … but they never approach their pastor personally.

But thankfully, this board shared their concerns directly with their pastor from the very beginning, so that when he left, he didn’t feel that the board conspired behind his back or fired him via ambush.

One pastor told me he was fired in an email … without any kind of warning. Another pastor was fired via certified letter. Other pastors I know have been told they’re fired right after a Sunday service … again, without ever being told that anything was wrong.

Such tactics speak volumes about the lack of maturity on the board.

Second, the board told the pastor that their goal was his restoration.

Much of the time, this is the key … but missing … element whenever a church board tries to correct their pastor’s behavior.

Think of Jesus’ words in Matthew 18:15:

“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.”

According to Jesus, what is the goal when a fellow believer sins against you?

The overarching goal is to win your brother over … to get him to listen to your concerns, repent of his wrongdoing, and change his behavior.

The goal is not to remove the pastor from office or from the fellowship. That’s the last step in the process (verse 17), not the first step.

I’ve discovered that when a board begins with the end result … “We need to remove our pastor from office right away” … they will wreak havoc on their pastor, his family, the congregation, and even on the board members themselves.

Because all too often, the board really wants to punish the pastor … and engages in what is really a vendetta.

But when the board begins with a process … “We are going to take our time, work the steps, encourage our pastor’s growth, but monitor his behavior” … there may be some fallout, but God will honor such a board’s motive.

Pastors not only have faults they know about … they also have blind spots. The best men do … even those pastors whose sermons you revere or whose books have blessed your life. (And that includes John MacArthur.)

If a pastor believes that he will be treated fairly and graciously by the governing board, he’ll be much more open to admitting his faults and trying to work on them.

But if a pastor believes that the board’s attitude is “one mistake and I’m out,” he’ll become resistant to correction … and too many boards operate like this.

And they’re usually the unspiritual ones.

Third, the board was specific about the behaviors they wanted the pastor to change.

In their letter to the congregation, the board mentioned “historical patterns of sin” and “pastoral misconduct.” They even named the exact behaviors that concerned them.

And, may I add, they gave the pastor plenty of time to change … a few years.

The pastor didn’t have to guess which behaviors the board didn’t like.

He knew.

In addition, the board let the congregation know that the pastor wasn’t guilty of adultery or financial impropriety.

Whenever a pastor is fired, but the governing board is silent about the grounds for dismissal, people automatically assume that the pastor committed adultery or engaged in fiscal shenanigans.

So even though it may not feel like a blessing, it’s wise for a board to say, “We’re dismissing the pastor because he did this and this and this … but we want you to know that he didn’t do this and this.”

The board did such an effective job that the pastor released a statement admitting that the board was right … he was still plagued by certain sins … and that their deliberations were “miraculous and beyond gracious.”

I wish that every dismissed pastor could say that they were treated that justly.

Fourth, the board kept the process as open as possible.

The board not only involved the pastor in the corrective process, but after the pastor agreed to resign, they also told the congregation why the pastor left and encouraged people to send them feedback, including both questions and comments.

They also put their names and email addresses on the contact page so people could easily converse with them.

This is a far cry from most of the situations that I hear about.

I once heard about a church board that announced that their pastor had been dismissed, and then warned the congregation, “You are not to contact the pastor at all.”

If I was told not to contact the pastor, that’s the very next thing I’d do.

You say, “But Jim, wouldn’t your action be divisive?”

My reply: “Unity should always be based upon truth, and trying to find out the truth isn’t by itself divisive.”

You might counter with, “But if you contacted the pastor after the board told you not to, isn’t that being rebellious against God’s leaders?”

Maybe, but what if they’re trying to cover up their own mistakes? What if they’re more guilty than the pastor? How can anyone know unless they do contact the pastor?

I’ve noticed that the more hush-hush the board is about their pastor’s dismissal, the more they’re trying to protect themselves … and the more likely it is that they intend to slander the pastor’s reputation to eliminate any future influence in the congregation.

Finally, the board made sure that the pastor and his family were cared for.

The board did this in two primary ways:

*They gave the pastor a severance package.

*They encouraged the congregation to send encouraging notes to him and his family.

I’m embarrassed to say that there are many church boards that plan to fire their pastor, and at the same time, do all they can to make sure that they don’t offer the pastor any kind of severance.

I’m thinking of one pastor in particular who was forced to resign and was denied severance even though he had no savings, Social Security, or retirement income to fall back on.

Boards offer excuses like:

“We don’t have the money to offer the pastor anything.”

“We have the money but let’s earmark it for other projects.”

“The pastor has behaved so badly that he doesn’t deserve any severance.”

“The pastor’s wife works so we’re off the hook and don’t have to give him anything.”

“Let’s let the church vote on any severance package … and arrange matters so they vote no.”

But as I’ve said many times, the board should offer the pastor severance more than 95% of the time because:

*the pastor’s family needs financial assistance even if the pastor has been a rascal.

*it can take a pastor a year or longer for the pastor to find another ministry.

*a severance package minimizes the chance the pastor will start a new church in the community … and use his recently-former church as his mission field.

*it’s the right thing to do.

I also love the idea that the board encouraged the congregation to write positive notes to the pastor and his family.

This practice can provide healing for the pastor, who is tempted to think, “I must be a horrible person for not being able to keep my pastor-job.”

This practice can also be therapeutic for the congregation because they’ll be forced to see all the good the pastor did during his time at the church … and not just the bad.

Whenever a governing board has to correct a pastor’s conduct, it’s very stressful for everyone concerned … and it’s tempting for board members to say, “Let’s just end the anxiety and fire the guy.”

But when a board operates biblically, their actions might even cause their pastor to agree with their conclusions.

How do you feel about the way this board handled their pastor’s dismissal?

I’d love to hear from you.

Read Full Post »

Four Reasons Terminated Pastors Cut Off Christian Friends

Posted in Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with Church Staff, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged pastoral termination, terminated pastors and their friends, terminated pastors and their relationships on March 17, 2016| 4 Comments »

Picture this scenario inside a church:

Pastor Mike has served as senior pastor of Mercy Church for 12 years. During that time, the church has doubled in size and donations.

By any measure, Mike’s tenure at Mercy has been a success.

But due to the increased flow of guests, Pastor Mike has told the governing board that the church either needs to (a) add a third service, or (b) make additional room in the worship center … which might mean knocking out the side walls and expanding the seating.

For some reason … and Mike doesn’t know why … the board seems resistant to both ideas. In fact, at the last board meeting, Mike sensed that the attitude of several board members was, “We aren’t going to get behind your suggestions no matter what. We’re drawing a line.”

It depressed Pastor Mike to think that Mercy wouldn’t want to reach more people for Jesus … but he wondered if there were some church leaders who simply didn’t want to follow his leadership anymore.

Over the next few months, Mike learned that his instincts were correct. Along with three board members, two staff members had also become resistant to Mike’s leadership.

Then one day, Pastor Mike discovered that those board members and staffers were holding secret meetings.

Mike began to have anxiety attacks … which led to panic attacks … which scared him so much that he began to withdraw from all but essential church meetings and activities.

But now he had given additional ammunition to the Gang of Five. In their eyes, not only was Mike pushing too hard to reach new people, he was also acting in an aloof manner.

So they moved in for the kill.

At the next meeting of the governing board, the chairman presented Mike with a letter, claiming that he was distancing himself from people … resisting the board’s leadership … and was no longer qualified to be the church’s pastor.

Then followed the coup de grace … Mike was asked for his resignation.

After negotiating a severance package, Mike quit … with nowhere to go.

Over the following year, Mike cut off all contact with 95% of the people from Mercy Church. It was very painful for him … he didn’t want to do it … but he realized that for his own sanity and wellbeing, he had to.

Taking this step felt counter to all that he believed, but he felt he had no choice. Mike couldn’t bear to see Facebook stories involving church families getting together … featuring photos of those who pushed him out.

So here are the steps Mike took to stop contact:

*Mike reviewed his friends on Facebook and unfriended everybody from the church except those who had explicitly told/showed him they wanted to stay friends.

*Mike reviewed his contacts on LinkedIn and Twitter and did the same.

*Mike cut off all contact with anyone in Christian ministry who seemed to take the side of his detractors, including denominational leaders, parachurch leaders, and pastor friends.

*Mike tossed all email addresses and phone numbers of anyone and everyone who did not stand with him during his conflict at Mercy.

Do Mike’s actions seem extreme?

Some would say, “Absolutely. Pastor Mike should be building bridges to repair relationships rather than putting up barricades to end them.”

But in many ways, I am just like Pastor Mike. When I left my last church ministry nearly 6 1/2 years ago, I had to face some cold-hearted realities, even though they flew in the face of what I believe about Christian unity and relationships.

I had to cut myself off from most of the people in my last church … including ministry friends.

Let me share with you four reasons why I did this:

First, I cut off contact with most church attendees because I was never going to see them again.

The relationship we had was pastor-parishioner. That was it.

And when I resigned, that relationship was over forever.

I was no longer responsible for their spiritual welfare, and they were no longer responsible for listening to me … supporting me … or praying for me.

May as well acknowledge it and let everybody move on.

I’ve never told this story before, but nearly three months after my departure, I had to return to my previous church to move more than twenty boxes of files I had left behind.

When I walked through the worship center balcony upstairs, I saw the daughter of a woman who had just turned 100 years old below. This woman had been one of my biggest supporters for years, and I always assumed I would conduct her memorial service.

But it wasn’t to be. The daughter was present because her mother had just died … and someone else … who didn’t know her … would be conducting the service instead.

No longer marrying or burying people that you love is one of the many prices a forced-out pastor has to pay after he leaves a church … and one he must accept to get better.

I also didn’t want to hear about what was going on in the church … good or bad … and that was the basis of most of my church friendships.

So I had to cut people off.

Second, I cut off contact with some church leaders because they had planned my demise.

It’s painful to face the truth, but when church leaders conspire to get rid of a pastor, they are not just ending their professional relationships with him … they are also ending their personal relationships with him.

By their actions, they are telling their pastor, “We never want to see you or hear from you again. You are dead to us.”

Why keep in contact with people who either hate you or, at the very least, despise you? There’s nothing to work out.

One church leader seemed to stand with me in public, but when he sensed the politics were shifting, he changed his stance … trying to play both sides of the fence.

I heard from him the month after I left … but after that, never again.

He followed me on Twitter, but I figured he was monitoring what I saying, so I cut him off … for good.

Although we had many wonderful memories together, our relationship was finished.

Third, I cut off contact with several pastor friends because they were more loyal to my predecessor than to me.

Years ago, I formed a luncheon group composed of four pastor friends from our denomination plus me. We met every month for lunch … got together every Christmas for dinner … and visited each other’s homes/churches on occasion.

I was especially close to one of the pastors, considering him my best friend … and not just in ministry.

As time went on, two of those friends moved to pastorates in different states. Both went through forced terminations, and I did my best to be there for both of them.

Years later, when I went through my own forced termination, they both called me months later to find out what happened.

(As I wrote in my book Church Coup, my predecessor … who had brought me to the church initially … played a part in forcing me out of office.)

As I shared my story with my friends, it was obvious that our friendships had changed dramatically.

With one friend, when I shared the part my predecessor played, he said something that indicated that my predecessor had already spoken with him … and that my side didn’t matter to him.

I waited several years, but my pastor friends didn’t lift a finger to help me or stay in contact.

In other words, it was obvious that for whatever reason, our friendship was history.

And so one day, I unfriended them both from Facebook and took them off LinkedIn.

That happened three years ago. I’m grateful for the many years I enjoyed their friendship … and maybe living in different states had something to do with it … but I can’t imagine resurrecting those relationships.

So regretfully, rather than waiting for them to take my side or give me some encouragement, I cut them off.

Finally, I cut off contact with anyone who needed a long explanation as to why I left my last church.

For a long time after I was forced out, the injustice of it all was all I could talk about. That obsessive mindset – “God’s people treated me unfairly, and I’d like to tell you about it” – is toxic.

You’re aware that you’re spewing poison, so you limit who you talk to … and for how long … because you don’t want to lose more friends than you already have.

But telling that story repeatedly drains you of the energy you need just to survive. You’re digging your own emotional grave.

Now I feel the opposite. I don’t want to talk about what happened … unless it’s for professional purposes.

God gave me a story, so I’ll refer to it in my blogs … while consulting with Christian leaders … and in any workshops I do on church conflict.

But other than that, I’d rather talk about the presidential race … or the 2016 baseball season … or how fun my grandsons are.

Since I left my last ministry, I’ve wondered if anyone involved in ending my ministry … and career … would ever contact me directly and say, “I’m so sorry for the part I played in your leaving. Can you find it in your heart to forgive me?”

The answer would immediately be, “Of course I will forgive you. In fact, you may not be aware of this, but I forgave you a long time ago.”

But not one leader or attendee has ever done that.

I don’t want my health and happiness to be dependent upon waiting for people to repent, so I’ve chosen to remain friends with those who:

*love me outside of my last church experience.

*love me in spite of my last church experience.

*love me and believe that I was unfairly treated.

*love me in spite of the fact that I write about every angle of pastoral termination on a regular basis.

I’m a huge Beatles fan and think often of the lyrics to the bridge of their song “We Can Work It Out”:

“Life is very short, and there’s no time for fussing and fighting, my friend

I have always thought that it’s a crime, so I will ask you once again

Try to see it my way, only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong … ”

When I was a pastor, I tried to be friends with everyone in the church.

It was expected of me.

Now that I’m not a pastor, I can choose who my friends are.

And I can choose who they aren’t.

Before I left my last ministry, I assumed I was friends with many people in the church … including staff members, board members, and key leaders.

But if they didn’t want to be friends with me anymore, then I follow Paul’s words in Romans 12:18:

“If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”

But for those who don’t want to live in peace … I sadly but firmly cut them off … without regret or guilt.

And look forward to complete reconciliation around the throne of God.

Read Full Post »

Making Charges Against a Pastor

Posted in Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged church board and pastoral termination, making charges against a pastor, pastoral termination, reasons for forcing out a pastor, reasons for terminating a pastor on March 3, 2016| Leave a Comment »

When I listen to the stories of pastors who have undergone a forced termination, I almost always ask them this question:

“What were the charges against you?”

If a pastor committed a major offense like heresy (and I haven’t met one yet who has), sexual immorality, or criminal behavior, then he knows precisely why the governing board removed him from office, and has only himself to blame.

But in more than 95% of the cases, by any objective measure, the pastor isn’t guilty of any major offense.

And much of the time, the pastor is in the dark as to why the board pressured him to resign.

If I was a church board member, and I was concerned about my pastor’s behavior or ministry, I would tell my fellow leaders, “We need to design and follow a fair and just process for dealing with our concerns about the pastor. Since he isn’t guilty of any impeachable offense, we need to give him the benefit of the doubt and bring him into our deliberations.”

This means following three principles:

First, the pastor needs to know what people – including board members – are saying about him.

Second, the pastor needs to be able to respond to any charges made against him.

Finally, the pastor should be allowed to suggest ways to improve his behavior and ministry.

A minority of church boards follow the above three principles, and when I speak with such a board member, I always commend him for trying to be fair.

But the majority act differently. Here’s a typical scenario:

Pastor Tim receives a phone call at his home late one night from his friend Nate, who tells him that the church board has met in secret twice over the past month. Since Pastor Tim is also a board member, and he wasn’t invited to those meetings, he immediately assumes that the board is talking about him.

And Tim’s instincts are correct.

Since nobody on the board has spoken to Tim about any concerns about him, Tim asks himself a series of questions:

*Am I guilty of a major offense? No.

*Am I aware of anyone who wants to get rid of me? No.

*Am I aware of anyone who is angry with me? No.

*Am I aware of any factions that are forming against me? No.

*Have our attendance and giving slid recently? Maybe a bit, but I can’t believe I’d be fired for a temporary slump.

Even though Tim is confident before God that he has done nothing to merit dismissal, he doesn’t sleep well that night.

Four days later, Don, the board chairman, asks to meet with Pastor Tim privately for breakfast the next day. After another sleepless night, Don and Tim meet.

Don begins, “Pastor, a group has formed inside our church that has some serious concerns about the way you do ministry. The board has listened to their concerns and we believe that for the good of the church, you should resign as pastor effective immediately.”

Pastor Tim cannot believe what he’s hearing. He’s absolutely stunned by Don’s revelation.

After a long and awkward pause, Tim asks, “What are their concerns about me?”

Don responds, “We’re not at liberty to say, but they’re important enough that we think you should resign.”

Tim then asks, “Who are these people, Don?”

Don responds, “They’re spoken to us confidentially and we told them we wouldn’t reveal their names.”

Tim then says, “Don, that’s not fair! I need to know who is making charges against me and what those charges are or you’re participating in a kangaroo court.”

But Don doesn’t budge, saying, “Look, Tim, this is in the best interests of everyone involved.”

Ready to blow his top, Tim tells Don, “I don’t agree with you, Don, unless you tell me who is saying what about me.”

But Don won’t reveal a thing to his pastor about the charges.

At this point, let me quote from church conflict expert Speed Leas in his manual Moving Your Church Through Conflict:

“A person being charged or condemned by others should have the right to know what those charges are and [have] an opportunity to respond to them. Denying this opportunity plays into the hands of real or potential manipulators, allows untrue or distorted information to be circulated and establishes a precedent that the way to deal with differences is to talk about rather than to talk with others. I have also found it true that individuals who talk about others out of their presence tend to exaggerate their charges, believing they will not be quoted.”

The process that Leas describes is eminently fair, and yet many church boards violate these principles when they conspire to get rid of their pastor.

Why do church boards do this? Why do they engage in practices toward a man of God that are utterly unjust?

Supposition #1: The board ‘s reasons for getting rid of the pastor are so petty that they’d be embarrassed to reveal them.

A common reason for getting rid of a pastor is that one or two important people just don’t like him. But that’s not an objective charge … that’s a subjective preference … and few people are going to let their pastor know their feelings.

I have a friend who was dismissed and never given a reason. All he could do was speculate. He finally determined that he was fired because he didn’t visit a board member’s child who was in the hospital on an outpatient basis one day.

Supposition #2: Some key people in the church – board members, staff members, or prominent leaders – have threatened to leave the church unless the pastor is sacked.

Some of these leaders are personal friends of board members or their spouses. Some are longtime members or large donors. The board reasons, “It’s easier to get another pastor than it is to replace those who stand against the pastor.” So they jettison any kind of fair process and shut their mouths.

Supposition #3: Some board members – especially those who run small businesses – decide to treat the pastor the way they would treat one of their employees.

What do many small business owners tell their employees when they let them go? “You just aren’t working out.” They speak in vague terms because they feel it isn’t worth it to get into specifics. That same mentality is directed toward pastors in too many situations … but a pastor isn’t a sales clerk or a custodian. He’s someone called by God to lead God’s people and preach God’s Word. Big difference.

Supposition #4: The board doesn’t want to hurt the pastor’s feelings by being specific.

But what could be worse than being summarily and instantly dismissed? I for one would want to know exactly why I was being elbowed out the door … and I wouldn’t let the board off the hook by letting them resort to platitudes and vague generalities. If I had a blind spot in my character or behavior, I’d want to know about it so I could work on it … or I could be dismissed from my next position.

Supposition #5: Someone in church leadership – probably on the board – has a vendetta against the pastor.

That person doesn’t want to implement Jesus’ words and confront the pastor as Matthew 18:15-17 specifies, so they bully or manipulate the board to carry out their wishes … and the board passively goes along with them. This supposition says far more about the board than it does about the pastor.

I believe that many church boards dismiss their pastor prematurely. They never tell him directly about their concerns so the pastor is never given a chance to make course corrections. They also fail to bring up issues as they arise. Speed Leas comments:

“Healthy and fair confrontation should tell the ‘offender’ what is wrong, and prepare the way for negotiation (or collaboration) toward agreement and a better relationship. Confrontation which demands that things be done one way, and does not allow for others to shape the way those things are done, is oppressive and demeaning. There are times when a board or supervisor (the one with authority to direct others) must confront without negotiation or collaboration; but even in these cases the ‘offender’ should have ample opportunity to perform differently before being dismissed from the organization. This is often difficult and done poorly in church situations. Instead of clearly describing to an employee or volunteer what is wanted and seeking to find a way to achieve a mutually satisfactory relationship, too often church leaders avoid confrontation until all hope of improving the working relationship is lost, or they confront and expect immediate change on the part of others without looking at what else in the organization might need to be changed.”

I’m sure there are other reasons why the governing board doesn’t tell the pastor why they’re pushing him out, but these are the ones that come most readily to mind.

If the board refuses to tell the pastor why they’re letting him go, what, if anything, can the pastor do about it?

If I were Pastor Tim, I’d tell Don … at breakfast or later on: “If you want to fire me, go ahead, but realize that you’re going to have to explain your decision to (a) the church staff; (b) other church leaders; (c) the congregation as a whole; (d) members who will contact individual board members; (e) the district minister (assuming the church is part of a denomination); (f) any interim pastor you might hire; and (g) the next pastor.

“And believe me, if you tell any or all of these parties why you’re letting me go, much of what you say will eventually get back to me, and you and the rest of the board will come off as cowards.

“So here is what I propose: I ask that you and one other board member meet with me as soon as possible so you can tell me the real reason why you are letting me go. If you want to fire me, go ahead, but I will not give you a resignation letter unless you’re honest with me and until we agree on a severance package.”

If the board is intent on flexing its muscles, they might fire Pastor Time outright, but believe me … they are going to have a lot of trouble down the road.

This is just my opinion, but I believe that church boards like having a strong pastor when it comes to theology, and biblical morality, and critiquing the culture, but they want a weak pastor when they want to enforce their will upon him. They want him to roll over and play dead, and if he doesn’t, they don’t want him around any more.

This is where church boards need to remember that nobody comes to church to watch the board make decisions. They come primarily because they enjoy the pastor’s ministry.

All the more reason why every church board should treat the pastor fairly and justly.

Read Full Post »

The Pastor as Ecclesiastical Enforcer

Posted in Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with Church Staff, Conflict with the Pastor, Please Comment!, tagged Hebrews 13:17, pastors and enforcing biblical standards, pastors and legal issues on February 25, 2016| Leave a Comment »

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hebrews 13:17

I don’t remember anyone in seminary saying anything about this.

And I don’t recall reading about this issue in any ministry books I read before I became a pastor.

And I don’t have a memory of any of the pastors I served under bringing this problem to my attention.

What am I talking about?

Just this: when you become a pastor … whether you’re a solo pastor of a smaller church or the senior/lead pastor of a larger church … you must create and enforce certain rules … both to obey Scripture and to protect your church as an institution.

I’ll never forget the first time I had to do this as a young pastor.

I was called to become the pastor of a church in Silicon Valley at age 27. The deacons were the governing board, and all four were at least 60 years of age. (Doesn’t seem all that old anymore!)

One Sunday several months after I was called as pastor, a deacon (I’ll call him Jay) came to church one morning without his wife. It was obvious by the way Jay spoke that something was seriously wrong with his family.

When I got home, I called Jay’s wife, who told me that she was going to divorce her husband.

Ours was a small congregation, and the news that a prominent couple were splitting up traveled fast.

But more than that: the woman’s decision meant that I had to speak with Jay and ask him to step down from the deacons.

I didn’t want to meet with Jay alone. He was gruff and possessed a volatile temper, but how could I let him stay on the board? He was about to become biblically unqualified for his role.

I somehow convinced the other deacons that Jay needed to step down … and thought I had convinced Jay as well.

But my decision had consequences.

Three months later, the deacons told me, “Jay is our friend. He’s suffered enough. We want him back on the board.” Even though I protested, Jay returned.

Over the ensuing years, Jay exploded with anger at me once or twice a year … and I was never sure why.

Several years later, Jay was involved in leading a group of people out of our church. Was it payback for my decision from years before?

Here are seven things I’ve learned the hard way about the pastor’s role as ecclesiastical enforcer:

First, the role of enforcer is not in the pastor’s job description.

Written job descriptions will say that the pastor “is the leader of the church in all its activities” or that he is responsible for “managing the staff.”

Few job descriptions … if any … ever say, “The pastor is expected to enforce biblical standards and protect the church legally.”

But if the pastor fails at enforcement, he can jeopardize his congregation … or even lose his position … so he has to be an enforcer, even if it makes him cringe.

I never liked being an enforcer, but soon discovered that certain people … especially the governing board … expected it … because they were at work during the week, while I was on the church campus continually.

Second, sometimes enforcing rules falls to the pastor by default.

I once pastored a church where the campus was frequented by skateboarders.

They loved to go up and down a small flight of stairs on the edge of the property with their skateboards.

If I was the only person around, I’d go over and gently ask the guys to find another place to do their skateboarding.

The skateboarders became a chronic problem, never going away for long. I finally had to bring the issue up to the staff … the only ones on campus in the afternoons … because I needed broader help with enforcement … but I received pushback from the youth staff, who didn’t want to offend the skateboarders.

I didn’t want to offend anybody, either. I just didn’t want the church to get sued because we didn’t warn the skateboarders to leave.

Why did the others leave enforcement to me?

I will never know.

Third, sometimes the pastor has to enforce rules because certain people will only listen to him.

I once had a youth director who held regular youth meetings in the multipurpose room … but he always left the room a mess.

The following morning, when the next group came to use the room, it was trashed.

The office manager would tell me, “The multipurpose room was once again a disaster after last night.”

She tried talking to the youth guy, but he didn’t listen … and he wouldn’t change.

I finally had to get involved, but I didn’t want to, because it was just one more distraction from the ministry the church called me to do.

But sadly, certain people won’t listen to anybody but the pastor … and if he doesn’t get involved, nothing changes.

Fourth, sometimes the pastor is the only person who is willing to confront someone on a destructive pathway.

I once worked with a married staff member who was spending too much time with a single man.

Her “innocent” encounters with him were becoming more frequent and less indiscreet … negatively impacting both her job and her marriage.

Even though she had many friends … and they knew what she was doing … nobody had the courage to say anything to her.

Things were getting worse, so I lovingly spoke with her about the matter … and she became very upset … assuring me she wasn’t doing anything wrong.

A short while later, with another couple present, I spoke with her again.

Her friends didn’t say a word, while I spoke with her twice.

She quit her position and watched her marriage crumble. It was painful to watch.

But I had to do it, even though she never spoke to me again after our second meeting.

The pastor can’t be the only sheriff in a church. He needs some deputies.

Fifth, sometimes the pastor needs to share enforcement duties with other leaders.

One of my mentors used to tell me that whenever I had a difficult decision to make, I should take it to the governing leaders and “hide behind the board.”

Sometimes I would do just that, especially if I was uncertain how much authority I had to address a certain issue.

But if I already had the authority … like with church staff … I usually didn’t tell the board anything.

Maybe this is just my experience, but over 36 years in church ministry, I discovered that most church leaders cannot be counted on to enforce rules and policies, either because they are afraid of losing friends, or because they don’t know how to use their authority.

One time, my wife and I went to a restaurant after church one Sunday, and the youth directors were having a planning meeting there with their adult volunteers.

While that was commendable, I had made it clear to the youth leaders that all adult volunteers were expected to attend the first service, and engage in youth ministry during the second service. (You can’t have your adult volunteers … who are to be examples to the youth … not attending services.)

Well, the volunteers were skipping the first service and coming just for youth ministry … a definite no-no.

By this time, the youth directors were reporting to a different staff member, but he refused to enforce our policy.

So I had to speak with the staff member, as well as the youth directors … but as I learned later, nothing changed … and then matters became even worse.

This is the kind of stuff in a church that wears a pastor down. I don’t know how many times I tried to get someone … a board member, a staff member, a lay leader … to help me enforce certain guidelines, only to watch them wilt in the end.

That’s why many pastors stop asking other leaders for help and just enforce matters on their own.

Sixth, the pastor needs to address issues that concern him sooner rather than later.

I once heard Pastor Bill Hybels say that it’s the job of a leader to “intercept entropy.” That is, when a leader notices that things are going south, he has to go to the right person, describe what he’s seeing, and ask that changes be made.

When I was a young pastor, I would notice that certain things were wrong, but I’d sometimes let things slide.

But the older I got, the more quickly I addressed concerns, because things don’t get better when you fail to address them … they only get worse.

I tried to be gentle yet firm … but it wasn’t always easy for me to do.

Many years ago, I had a three-hour dinner with a nationally-known Christian leader. He was asking me questions about how I managed the church staff.

He said to me, “Jim, are you a responsible person?”

I said, “Yes, I’m very responsible.”

He replied, “Do you only have to be told to do something once?”

I said, “Yes, if you tell me to do something once, I do it right away.”

He responded, “Well, everyone is not like you.”

That exchange might not seem all that profound, but it opened up my eyes to the fact that some of my attempts at staff enforcement simply weren’t working because I naively assumed that everyone was like me … but they weren’t.

So the one thing I could control was to address issues quickly … as they arose … rather than wait for a “perfect time” that never came.

Finally, every church needs an enforcer other than the pastor.

I have a friend who served many years on the staff of one of America’s largest and most impactful churches.

He told me that the senior pastor … a name people know worldwide … always wore the white hat around the church campus.

People came to view him as their father … their uncle … and their friend. He was greatly beloved.

But the executive pastor was the one who wore the black hat. My friend would tell me stories where the executive would tell people to leave the campus and never come back.

If the senior pastor had become involved in enforcement issues, it would have resulted in a lot of bad blood between him and others … so he had somebody else do it instead.

This arrangement works well in a megachurch, and maybe even in a large church … but the smaller the church, the more enforcement duties fall directly on the pastor.

And the more times the pastor engages in enforcement, the more certain people resent him … and want to pay him back for taking them on.

I don’t know what percentage of conflict in a church occurs because a pastor tries to enforce rules/policies, or what percentage occurs because some people resent his interference.

But I do know this: enforcement issues sometimes kept me up all night.

When you pray for your pastor, toss in a prayer every now and then that God will give Him the wisdom to know when to enforce the rules … and when to let somebody else do it.

And if your pastor ever needs to speak with you, please … listen to him and cooperate.

Because, as Hebrews 13:17 tells us, someday he will have to give an account to the Ultimate Enforcer.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Restoring Kingdom Builders

Archive for the ‘Conflict with Church Board’ Category

Pastors and the One Day Contract

When Church Leaders Consult Only With Themselves

Accountable Pastors, Unaccountable Boards

When Church Leaders Give Little

Strengthening Your Church’s Immune System, Part 2

Strengthening Your Church’s Immune System, Part 1

Removing a Pastor Wisely

Four Reasons Terminated Pastors Cut Off Christian Friends

Making Charges Against a Pastor

The Pastor as Ecclesiastical Enforcer

“Church Coup”

Click here to purchase!

Categories

Archives

Follow Blog via Email

Church Conflict

Conflict Resolution Groups I Recommend

Pastor Abusers

Pastors and Burnout

Pastors and Forced Termination

Archive for the ‘Conflict with Church Board’ Category

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

“Church Coup”

Categories

Archives

Follow Blog via Email

Church Conflict

Conflict Resolution Groups I Recommend

Pastor Abusers

Pastors and Burnout

Pastors and Forced Termination