Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Conflict with the Pastor’ Category

Betrayed: A Film Exposing Clergy Killers

Posted in Church Conflict, Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with the Pastor, Fighting Evil, Pastoral Termination, tagged , , on October 10, 2012| 6 Comments »

Did you know there are individuals in our churches who seek to destroy pastors?

There is a term for such people: “clergy killers.”

I first heard the phrase used by Dr. Lloyd Rediger in an article promoting his book Clergy Killers which was published in the late 1990s.

The late Dr. Rediger was an ordained Presbyterian minister, a pastoral counselor, a church consultant, and the author of books on clergy burnout and toxic congregations, among others.

In 2011, when I learned that Dr. Rediger lived in the Southwest, I contacted him about the possibility of meeting someday.  However, he told me he couldn’t meet because he was busy working on a film about the clergy killer phenomenon.

The film has now been released, and it’s called Betrayed: The Clergy Killer’s DNA.

My wife and I recently viewed the 90-minute film in its entirety … hitting the pause button along the way to discuss what we had just heard.  (I can be annoying that way.)

The film features unscripted interviews with pastors, psychiatrists, and Christian leaders who seek to expose what they say has been “the best kept secret in the Church.”

And these leaders hail from evangelical, mainline, and Roman Catholic congregations.

Those who are interviewed discuss the motivations of those who attack clergy … our need to label this kind of behavior as “evil” … the viciousness of the attacks … the role of Satan and spiritual warfare … and the heavy cost that clergy killers exact on pastors, their families, and congregations.

In fact, clergy killers consider themselves to be on a mission: to destroy a pastor at all costs … regardless of how much the CK hurts others.

The film not only exposes people who attempt to harm their pastors, but also indicts churchgoers who allow this “emotional terrorism” to happen without doing anything.

I encourage you to order this film and watch it with other believers.  It’s one of the best things you can do to keep your church healthy … and to protect your pastor from unwarranted attacks.

In fact, if you’re in a small group, I encourage you to show the film sometime and discuss it afterwards.

You can order the film from the following website (and they’ll send it right out):

http://www.betrayedthemovie.com

It’s one of the best moves you can make to protect your pastor … and your church … from clergy killers.

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

Read Full Post »

Standing up to Emotional Terrorism in Churches

Posted in Change and Conflict in Church, Church Conflict, Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with the Pastor, Jim's Ten Favorite Articles, Pastoral Termination, tagged , , , on October 8, 2012| Leave a Comment »

A wise old pastor once warned me to avoid “the kiss of death.”

The kiss of death for a pastor isn’t administered by a woman … or a governing board … or a government agency.

No, the kiss of death occurs when a pastor resigns his position without anywhere else to go … because when churches are looking for a pastor, they prefer to call one who is already serving in a church rather than one who is in secular work or unemployed.

I nearly experienced the kiss of death in my second pastorate.

The church I served as pastor was the result of a merger between two churches … and I had led one of those churches.

The church board and I went on a retreat in the mountains.  We evaluated the entire ministry, including ways to improve everything we did.

This included the music ministry.

The board agreed to allow a band of young men to play for our services on Sunday mornings and evenings.

(The mother of the board chairman liked the band so much that when she died, she requested they play at her memorial service.)

However, when we made this change, I warned the board in advance that some people weren’t going to like it.

And I was right.

One middle-aged couple in particular became incensed about the music.  The wife refused to come to church.  Her husband eventually stayed home as well.

One year later, this antagonist contacted my district minister to complain about me.  By this time, he had gathered together a small but vocal contingent of people who viewed me as the antichrist.

One night, my district minister and I had a conversation in which he recommended that I resign to keep the peace in the church.

However, the entire board had told me that if I resigned, they would all resign along with me … leaving the church in the hands of the antagonists … who didn’t have a collective clue as to how to run a church.

Fortunately, the board stood with me … but the district leadership wilted.

For years, this scenario has played itself out in thousands of churches:

*The district leaders of a denomination hold a training time for pastors.

*The pastors are encouraged to institute changes in their churches so they will grow numerically.

*The changes always involve taking risks … and such risk-taking always angers some attendees.

*Those attendees who are angry about the changes don’t speak directly with their pastor about their feelings.

*Instead, they go around the pastor and form a faction inside the church designed to oust the pastor … threatening to boycott services and withhold giving unless their demands are met.

*In the process, someone in their group calls the district minister and complains to him about the pastor, intimating that the pastor is so divisive and/or ineffective that he should be removed from office.

*The district minister listens to the complainers, ends up taking their side, and then recommends that the pastor resign to keep peace in the church.

That’s exactly what happened to me 25 years ago.

Here’s the problem, however.  For any church to grow:

*The pastor needs to assume leadership.

*Leadership involves taking risks.

*Risk-taking always provokes change.

*Change always provokes anxiety and even anger.

*And those reactions are always aimed at the leader … in this case, the pastor.

*If the pastor receives support from the church’s governing board, he will survive and the church has the best chance for success.

*The pastor also needs support from his “superior,” whether that’s a district minister or a bishop.

*But if either the board or the district collapses on the pastor, he may be forced to resign.

I’ve recently been reading an insightful and motivating book on denominational leadership at the district level.

It’s called Hit the Bullseye by former denominational executive Paul Borden.

Borden says that district leaders need to become coaches for pastors, who need to become better leaders in their churches.

And if this occurs, Borden writes about district leadership:

“We are also willing to confront those congregations and congregational leaders (the emotional terrorists) who for years have chewed up pastors and spit them out.  We have confronted both pastors and congregations even though it has cost the region the loss of financial support.”

That last statement takes great courage to implement.  One of the reasons district leaders side with a church over against their pastor is to keep donations to the district flowing.

Borden continues:

“Finally, we are adamant about not letting the region be used to promote congregational triangulation, which allows laity to condemn pastors anonymously.  If any lay leaders call the region to complain about their pastor those leaders are told they must first confront their pastor before we will become involved in offering assistance, if that is required.”

Borden goes on to say that “congregational transformation will create tremendous conflict in dysfunctional, dying churches” and that “the worst thing that can happen in the midst of such conflict is mediation, since the conflict is more about the transfer of power and who will lead the congregation, than individuals or groups not being able to get along.”

Let me tell you one reason why so many churches aren’t growing and so many pastors are ineffective.

It’s because pastors instinctively know that for a church to grow, they’ll have to take risks … and if they do, they may very well end up standing alone without any support … because many Christian leaders will not stand up to emotional terrorism.

Will you?

Read Full Post »

Exaggerating a Leader’s Mistakes

Posted in Church Conflict, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, tagged , , , on October 1, 2012| 2 Comments »

My first few years as a pastor, I wanted to quit every other Monday.

And there were some people in my second church ministry who wanted to help that process along.

One Saturday morning, our church held a workday.  We had a small gymnasium, and at the front of the gym were two rooms used for storage.  One room contained several boxes of hymnbooks that were so old even the rescue mission wouldn’t take them.  They were at least three generations old … and nobody, but nobody, wanted them.

So I took the boxes and threw them in the church dumpster.

I should have thrown them out after the workday, however, when no one else was around … because my all-time greatest church nemesis (I’ll call him Phil) discovered the hymn books in the dumpster even though I thought I had covered them up pretty well.

Phil went around and told everybody … not that I had thrown out the old hymnbooks … but that I was throwing out the old hymns!

Phil’s charge simply wasn’t true.  I grew up on hymns and love many of them to this day.  While our church was learning new praise songs at the time – this was the late 1980s – we still sang hymns all the time.  Phil wasn’t comfortable with the changes I was making with our worship service, so he needed some issue against me.

So he did what many pastoral antagonists do.

Phil gathered a group around him, and they began writing down all kinds of things they didn’t like about me.

For one thing, they didn’t like the short dresses worn by the wife of a band member.  One critic demanded that I put a stop to her sleazy attire.  But this woman was struggling with her faith and her marriage … and I wasn’t about to drive her away from the church by telling her how to dress.

The group also attacked my wife, my nine-year-old son, and my six-year-old daughter for the flimsiest of reasons.

But the coup de grace occurred when they read the church constitution and noticed that I recommended that the constitution be null and void after five years.

Their conclusion?  After five years, I planned on taking over the church and running it as a dictatorship.  In other words, I would become the constitution!

The truth is that I just wanted to force us to update our governing document every few years … an idea I borrowed from Christian management guru Ted Engstrom.

The group came up with a lot more charges against me … most of which I mercifully cannot remember.

But here’s what I want you to know: they were almost all exaggerated.

When an antagonist decides to attack a pastor, that person usually takes a flaw in the pastor’s character or a mistake the pastor made and blows it up so the pastor looks evil.

And one of the tipoffs is that the antagonist along with his/her group never talks to the pastor directly about their issue(s).

What would happen if they did?

Most likely, the pastor would offer an explanation that would neutralize or negate the charges.

Because the antagonist cannot let the pastor interfere with his/her plan, the antagonist goes around the pastor and shares his charges with others as if they’re fact … and he/she has to exaggerate the charges to make the pastor look as bad as possible.

And wonder of wonders … a few people actually believe the overstated charges.

This is the devil’s modus operandi.  Isn’t this the same tactic Satan used against Jesus?

Jesus was accused by the Jews of blasphemy (because He called Himself the Son of God … which He was) and by the Romans of sedition against the state (because Jesus admitted He was a king … which He was) because they had only one king: Caesar.

And the sad thing about exaggerating charges against someone is that it often works … even though it’s evil.

Paul writes his ministry protege Timothy and urges him in 1 Timothy 5:19: “Do not listen to an accusation against an elder [includes pastors; see verse 17] unless it is confirmed by two or three witnesses.”

In other words, if you’re going to charge a pastor with wrongdoing, you better get it right … because all of heaven is watching the process very carefully (5:21).

Whenever you discuss someone’s misbehavior, make sure you are as accurate as possible.  While you don’t have to minimize misconduct, make sure you don’t maximize it, either.

And if you’re ever going to get rid of the old hymnals, load them in the trunk of your car and throw them out at home.

Read Full Post »

Staying Out of Triangles

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

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

Or a family member.

Or a classmate at school.

Or a neighbor with a barking dog.

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

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

Too often … they triangle another person into their dispute.

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

Examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example:

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

There are two basic ways her friends can reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t say, “Tell me more!”

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

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

I’ll write more about triangles next time.

Read Full Post »

More Congregational Feedback Ideas

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me mention four more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope these ideas are helpful.

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

Your thoughts?

Read Full Post »

Repeat Offender Churches

Posted in Church Conflict, Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with Church Staff, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, tagged , , , on September 12, 2012| 5 Comments »

Someone recently asked me the following question:

“What is the likelihood that a forced termination or major conflict could happen at the same church more than once?  (Let’s say within a 10-15 year span.)  Are there any statistics on that subject?”

Yes, there are.

Leading Edge, a resource for leaders of healthy churches, reported the following statistics in September 2003:

*25% of US pastors have experienced a forced exit at some point in their ministry.

*33% of US churches have had a pastor leave due to a forced exit.

*62% of ousted pastors were serving a church that had forced one or more pastors to leave in the past.

And the most chilling statistic of all:

*10% of US churches have forced three or more pastors to leave in their past and are considered “repeat offenders.”

The driving force behind a pastor’s forced exit is usually a small faction inside the congregation … composed of only 3-4% of the people.

The second largest catalyst is a member of the church’s governing board.

The typical size of the small faction is 7-10 people.

Once a faction or a board forces out their pastor, they know the template and may feel free to use it on the next pastor … and the one after that.

Let’s freely acknowledge that a small percentage of pastors should leave due to heretical teaching, sexual immorality, or a criminal offense.

But in most cases, the pastor hasn’t done anything worthy of banishment.

Presuming that a pastor is innocent of any major offense, how can the people of a church that has experienced this tragedy prevent the forced exit of their next pastor?

First, identify the perpetrators by name.  A congregation needs to know the identities of those who forced their pastor to leave.  If you don’t know who did it, you won’t be able to stop them from doing it again.  This is biblical.  (Paul fingered Hymenaeus, Philetus, and Alexander the coppersmith as troublemakers, while John cast a spotlight on Diotrephes.)

Second, confront the perpetrators for their divisive actions.  Even if a congregation identifies the perpetrators, little has been accomplished if those same people are quickly placed into leadership positions.  See Titus 3:10-11.

Let me say this as emphatically as I know how: it is spiritually and morally wrong for a congregation to place people into leadership who used deception and destruction to force out the previous pastor.

If you doubt me, read the Book of Numbers sometime soon.  Moses and Aaron were frequently criticized by various leaders and factions in Israel … but God always sided with his chosen leaders and always disciplined those who attacked them.

And God never said to the perpetrators, “You know, you guys are right.  Moses shouldn’t be in leadership.  I’ll open up the earth and swallow him up … and let you guys lead Israel instead.”

In fact, in Numbers 16, God opened up the earth and swallowed the 250 people who stood with Moses’ three critics instead.

Third, prayerfully ask the perpetrators to repent for their actions.  However, this rarely happens.

I know a church where four staff members tried to force out their pastor many years ago.  The pastor threatened to expose them … and three of them quickly resigned.  (The perpetrators in such cases fear public exposure more than anything.)

About five years later, one of the four wrote the pastor a letter of apology, admitting that what he had done was wrong.  The other three?  He’s still waiting to hear from them.

I don’t know why this is, but some people demonize their pastor and then believe that they are justified using any and all means to force him to quit.

Such methodology damages more than the pastor, though: it damages a church’s soul.

Finally, realize that pastors are most vulnerable between years four and five.  Most pastors enjoy a honeymoon of a year or two when they first come to a church, especially if they don’t initiate much change.

During year three, the pastor’s critics begin to emerge.

Between years four and five of a pastor’s tenure, the pastor typically announces and promotes a specific agenda for the church’s future.  Because change provokes anxiety, some people will rebel against the pastor’s agenda.

The pastor’s critics will begin to question everything he does and says.  They will talk to others who feel the same way.  If a leader emerges, they will form a faction to take back their church.

If the pastor is a strong individual … and especially if he has board support … he will continue to communicate the direction he believes God wants him to take the church.

And this will force much if not all of the faction to leave the church.

But if the pastor collapses emotionally … or his family wilts under the pressure … or the pastor’s health is affected by the constant criticism … and especially if the board caves on him … then the pastor will choose to resign instead.

And a tiny, vocal faction will privately take credit for getting rid of their minister.

This information is contained in Carl George’s brilliant article called “The Berry Bucket Balance.”

Many years ago, I did a study of pastoral tenure in my district.  I examined the tenures of 60 pastors.

The average tenure of those pastors was 4 1/2 years … midway between years four and five.

This is a time to be hypervigilant … but an attack can come at any time.

A few years ago, I wrote my doctoral project at Fuller Seminary on church antagonism.

During my research, I analyzed five major conflicts that my church at the time had experienced over the years.

I discovered that the church’s culture was one of non-confrontation.  When people acted up … or committed evil … nobody did anything about it.

The perpetrators felt free to attack, criticize, and even destroy people because they knew that nothing would happen to them.

We have to hit this issue head-on or there will be even more repeat offender churches in the future.

Your thoughts?

Read Full Post »

Four Observations About Pastoral Termination

Posted in Church Conflict, Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with Church Staff, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment! on August 27, 2012| 2 Comments »

I’m in a celebrating mood today because this blog just reached a milestone!

After nearly 20 months and 216 postings, we finally hit 20,000 views last night … an average of just under 100 views per article.

My top 5 articles according to readership are:

*If You Must Terminate a Pastor

*When to Correct a Pastor

*Pastors Who Cause Trouble

*Facing Your Accusers

*When You’re Upset with Your Pastor

The articles I’ve written about my family members (especially my son’s wedding) and about music also have lots of views, but this blog is primarily about pastor-church conflict.

And as you can tell from the above titles, I write primarily for lay people – board members included.  I’m trying to help them deal with their feelings about their pastor when they’re frustrated with the way he’s leading, preaching, or acting.

After talking with pastors and researching this topic for years, I have four observations to make about pastoral termination:

First, few believers know how to terminate a pastor sensitively and wisely.

If a pastor works for the governing board of a church, and the board decides to fire him, the board will probably:

*Ignore biblical principles for correcting a spiritual leader.

*Brush aside the governing documents of their church.

*Skip any kind of due process for the pastor.

*Fail to anticipate how the congregation will react to the pastor’s ouster.

Instead, they’ll just put their head down and remove the pastor using any means at their disposal … even unchristian ones.

I recently talked with a pastor who told me what happened with his church board.

The pastor heard about a conflict training program at a Christian university.  He invited the board to go along.

One board member attended with the pastor.  The other two declined to go.

One week later, those two board members met with the pastor and fired him.

Why didn’t they want to attend the training program?  Because they didn’t want to learn new skills that might prevent them from forcing their pastor to leave.

It’s important that we train boards how to handle conflicts with their pastor before they choose to fire him … because most people … even Christian leaders … cannot control how messy things become when they forcibly terminate their pastor.

Second, boards usually blindside their pastor when they fire him.

I recently spoke with a pastor who had been at his church for nearly two decades.  The church had a large impact in their community and the pastor thought he was doing a great job.

One day, the board called a meeting with the pastor and fired him.

The pastor wasn’t guilty of heresy, or immorality, or any major offense.

And to this day, he has no idea what he did to deserve being terminated.

Here’s the typical scenario:

*Nobody on the board ever sits down with the pastor and talks to him about any concerns they have.

*Nobody confronts or corrects him.

*Nobody allows the pastor to face his accusers and their charges.

*Nobody loves him enough to carry out Matthew 18:15-20 or 1 Timothy 5:19-21.

*Nobody asks God what they should do … but ask God to bless them after they’ve made their decision.

Instead, the board meets in secret, negatively evaluates the pastor’s performance, and fires him without ever giving him the chance to (a) know the complaints against him, and (b) make any necessary adjustments.

Is this legal?  It is if the governing documents of a church say the board can act that way.

Is this moral?  No.

Is it spiritual?  Hardly.

It’s an indication that the board views the church as a business … instead of a spiritual organism … and that they view the pastor as an employee … instead of someone called by God to lead that church.

It’s also an indication that they either lack the time or expertise to correct him … or that they feel the pastor is unredeemable … which seems like a contradiction for people who claim to believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ can transform anyone.

Third, the congregation never hears the truth about why the pastor left.

Under the guise of “confidentiality,” the board makes a pact to refuse to tell anyone the reasons why the pastor has departed.

This may be because the pastor did something immoral and the board is protecting the pastor’s career.

This may be because the pastor did something illegal and the board is protecting the church.

This may be because the board handled things unwisely and they’re covering up their mistakes.

If the pastor was allowed to state publicly why he was forced to leave, he might persuade people that he was treated poorly, which might provoke sympathy for him, turn people against the governing board, and cause people to leave the church.

If the board was allowed to state publicly why they forced the pastor to leave, they would undoubtedly blame everything on him, take no responsibility for their own failures, and have to explain themselves to the congregation.

Because boards just want the pastor gone, they often grant “severance for silence.”  They give the pastor a small compensation package if he’ll leave quickly and quietly … and not tell anyone how badly they handled things.

In fact, because this is such a common problem, I toyed for a while with calling my new book Bungled.

Finally, the perpetrators almost never admit they’ve done anything wrong.

When an individual sins, he or she may or may not admit it.

When a pastor sins, he may or may not admit it.

When a board sins, they almost never admit it.

It is the nature of groups to make a decision and, even if they’re wrong, protect and defend each other afterwards.

How often have you heard the White House … a news organization … a corporate board … a sports team … a school board … a homeowners association … or a state government agency … admit together that they did something wrong?

It rarely if ever happens.

In fact, if even one member of an organization admits that their group has done something wrong, the other members will invariably disown that person or try to remove them altogether.

This is why once a board decides to terminate a pastor, they act like they’re 100% faultless and he’s 100% blameworthy.

And this is why that board and the pastor never reconcile.

I recently spoke with a top Christian leader who told me about a church that called a new pastor.

The pastor wanted to see God renew the church, and he did everything he could to make sure that happened.

But there was just one thing remaining … he wanted the church to reconcile with some of its former pastors who had been mistreated.

The new pastor wasn’t around during the years these pastors served, and the church had many newcomers who had no idea what had happened in the past.

But this pastor called all these men back, and one Sunday, he stood up and confessed that the church had wronged these men of God and asked for their forgiveness on behalf of the church.

I wish this sort of thing would happen more often.  There are too many wounded pastors and churches in our country.

But this kind of thing is rare because of pride.  We convince ourselves that if we did or said something, it was right … but if the pastor did or said something … it was wrong.

Is life really that black and white?

If you’ve been reading for a long time, thank you.  Some subscribers have told me they’ve read every article I’ve written.

If this is your first time here, check out some of the categories on the right side of my blog.  You might find an article or two that will help you deal with the way you feel about your pastor.

And even if you’re an occasional reader, thanks for visiting this site.  We’re honored when you come around.

I love it when people ask questions and leave comments, even if you disagree with something I’ve said.  Since this is the way we all learn, feel free to give me feedback.

I’m still learning a lot about pastoral termination, church conflict, and conflict in general.

And I invite you to keep reading as we learn together.

Read Full Post »

“Lord, I Don’t Want to be a Prophet!”

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

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

The gift of prophecy.

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

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

Teaching is my top gift.  Prophecy is second.

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

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

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

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

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

WHEN IN DOUBT, SAY IT.

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

Maybe so … maybe not.

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

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

Second, prophets feel free to talk about any subject.

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

Examples?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My two favorite Bible characters are Jeremiah and Timothy.

They both shrank from their calls to ministry.

They both felt unsuccessful.

They both felt like quitting at times.

And they were both sensitive men.

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

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

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

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

You feel like a spiritual schizophrenic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need your gifts … and you need mine.

Even the gift of prophecy.

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

Read Full Post »

Preaching Ethically

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course … the verse isn’t there.

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

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

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

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

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

Let me make one final statement:

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Selecting a Church’s Governing Leaders, Finale

Posted in Church Conflict, Conflict with Church Board, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, tagged , , on August 10, 2012| Leave a Comment »

The single greatest human indicator of a pastor’s success in a church is his relationship with the governing board.

A pastor can be a visionary … and a great Bible teacher … and an insightful counselor … and a superb administrator … but if he does not work well with the board, his ministry will go nowhere.

For most of my ministry life, the boards I served with let me know they were there to support my vision for the church … although they reserved the right to tell me when I was suffering from temporary insanity.

But if a pastor wants to take a church in one direction, and the board wants to go in a different direction, the eventual aftermath will be heartbreaking for everybody involved.

This is why the selection process for church leaders is so crucial.

How should the process be managed?

*The selection process should begin months before leaders are approved.  If you wait to the last minute to select leaders, you will pay for it by securing people who are available but not necessarily competent.

*Nominations can come from the congregation, a nominating team, the board itself, or the pastor.  However it’s done, you can’t allow yourself to be pressured by lobbying.  I’ve found that the best people are initially reluctant to serve and that some who appear eager just want power.

*There needs to be some kind of vetting process for each nominee, including a criminal background check.  Some churches require the written approval of a supervisor at work and/or people in the community (consistent with 1 Timothy 3:7) as well.

*I don’t know how far to push this, but the pastor needs to find out the giving levels of all prospective board candidates in general terms (not specific amounts), especially if the board oversees church finances.  You cannot allow someone on the board who does not give generously to the church.  Board members need to set a financial example and can’t be managing tens of thousands of dollars when they haven’t invested in their own local ministry.

Besides, giving is always an indicator of a person’s spiritual temperature.

I once read that about half of all pastors know how much the people in their church give every week, and that half do not.  (Some pastors come into the office on Monday and the giving records from the weekend are already on their computer.)  While I was one of those pastors who never wanted to know (and never did know) how much people gave, I would make one exception: the pastor has to know whether any prospective board member is already a generous giver … or that person should be dropped from consideration.  (This suggestion came to me from a former district minister.)

*Before board members are officially approved, the pastor and/or chairman should sit down with each candidate and let them know what is expected of them in writing … maybe asking them to sign a document to that effect.

*I believe that if a church votes on/ratifies its board members, the percentage necessary for election should be greater than a simple majority.  In fact, I believe it should be the same percentage that a senior pastor candidate has to receive (usually 75%).

When I was still a teenager, I was selected to count the votes for elders and deacons at my church two years in a row.  Out of 95 votes cast the first year, one man had 20 votes against him.  The second year, one man had 11 votes against him.  Since a simple majority was all that was required for election, both men were put into office … and both men later crashed and burned morally.  I always felt that the people who voted against those men knew something they weren’t sharing.

However, my former church in Phoenix never votes on elders.  The board nominates three men every year, and their brief biographies are placed in the program.  Then the men are introduced in each worship service, and the congregation is encouraged to write down how they feel about the nominees.  If you think they should be elders, or you have reservations, you can write those down … and I assume someone follows up those responses.  (The basis for this process is Titus 1:5 where Paul tells Titus to appoint – not elect – elders in every city.)

*I do not believe that a staff member … with the possible exception of an executive pastor … should sit on a church board.  If the pastor supervises the staff, as in most churches … and the board supervises the pastor … how can a staff member be put in the position of supervising the pastor?  When the staff member is having problems with the pastor, the staffer will inevitably share his concerns with a board member, who may very well take the staffer’s side against the pastor … a classic recipe for a major conflict.

This scenario blurs the lines of accountability.  Who supervises whom?

I’ve tried it both ways, and believe that allowing a staff member to sit on the church board eventually results in one of two scenarios: either the staff member aligns himself with the board and pushes out the pastor, or the pastor aligns himself with the board and pushes out the staff member.

If you know of cases where this works well, please let me know.

*There needs to be some kind of an installation service for new board members … maybe with former board members laying hands on them and praying for their ministry.

*The board needs to find a way to report to the church on a regular basis about what they’re doing, whether orally or in writing.  A board that resists accountability will claim that everything is confidential, which is often an excuse for cloaking things in secrecy.

Whenever I placed a priority on the selection of governing leaders, the ministry went forward at a steady pace.

But whenever I neglected to select leaders carefully, the board, the church, and their pastor paid a heavy price.

Your thoughts?

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »