Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Pastoral Termination’ Category

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already.  Why not rather be wronged?  Why not rather be cheated?  Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.  1 Corinthians 6:7-8

Many years ago, when my family lived in Silicon Valley, we lived next door to a family that scared us half to death.

For example, one night around 11:15, I saw a glow outside our bathroom window.  When I opened it, I saw that our neighbor’s roof was on fire.

Matt, a young man in his early twenties, had lit a pillow on fire while smoking.  Not thinking, he quickly threw the pillow outside his window onto the roof …and tried to put out the fire by barraging it with glasses of water.

From time-to-time, Matt and his buddies would be drinking outside late at night, and they would sit on our front lawn … right by our bedroom window.  Strong disagreements sometimes ensued between Matt and his colleagues.

One time … around 3:00 am … I saw Matt slug his girlfriend after an argument … after which I immediately called the police.

Let’s put it this way: if our family was having problems, the last place we would go for help would be Matt’s family.

In the same way, when families in a community hear that Christians in a church are fighting … and resigning … and leaving … that’s the last place they would go for help … and that feeling might last for years.

This thought reminds me of a conversation that was relayed to me after a major conflict surfaced in my last ministry.

Someone was asking about our church, and an individual in city government replied, “You don’t want to go there.  They’re having problems.”

Until that time, as far as I knew, our church had a glowing reputation throughout the community.  We marched in our city’s annual parade (where people sometimes cheered when we walked by), were members of the Chamber of Commerce, participated in events like Relay for Life, and adopted a school, among other things.

But our conflict quickly spilled outside the congregation and made its way into people’s ears and homes.

Let me make four observations about how major conflict affects a church’s reputation:

First, churches in conflict turn off those they’re trying to reach.

Last night, my wife was watching a news show, and clips were shown of a well-known politician uttering hateful and vile language.

I instinctively blurted out, “You are not welcome in our house,” and muted the sound.

I do the same thing if a television debate becomes too nasty or volatile.  The rancor deeply disturbs my spirit and adds to my stress level.  I don’t need it.

That’s exactly how most unchurched people respond when they hear about a church that’s fighting.  Families have enough conflict of their own.  They don’t want anymore … especially from people who claim to love others unconditionally.

Much of the time, when a church forces out an innocent pastor, the news gets around the community, and those who considered visiting the church refrain.  If they visit any church, it will be one where people seem to get along.

The best “church shrinkage” strategy is for a congregation to let its differences hit the grapevine … including social media.

Second, churches in conflict negate their message of reconciliation.

Dr. Francis Schaeffer claimed that love was the final apologetic for Christians.

Jesus told His disciples in John 13:35, “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Is the converse also true?

We might put it this way: “By this all men will doubt if you are my disciples, if you hate one another.”

By the time a conflict gets around a community, the core issue is largely forgotten … and people focus on the relational fallout instead.  (“The people at that church don’t get along.”)

How can churches that claim to embrace the gospel preach effectively about Jesus when it’s obvious they’re not living its core belief?

We Christians basically have two messages: love God and love one another.

Major conflicts contradict both messages.

Why would anyone be attracted to Christ when it doesn’t seem to be doing any good in the life of His followers?

And why would anyone think that a “fighting church” could help them with their own relational problems?

Third, churches in conflict negate the process for reconciliation.

The gospel is the message of reconciliation.  But the New Testament is clear there is a process for reconciliation as well.

That process is often found in a church’s governing documents.  The process is based on Jesus’ words in Matthew 18:15-20 and amplified by verses like Luke 17:3-4; Galatians 6:1-2; and 1 Timothy 5:19-21.

I believe that when church leaders follow the teaching of Matthew 18 seriously, most conflicts inside a church can be resolved, and those conflicts will not spill out into the community.

But when church leaders ignore Matthew 18 … especially when they go straight to power and play church politics … one can almost guarantee that the conflict will get around the community.

Jesus’ words in Matthew 18 lay out deliberate steps, and the time between steps may take weeks, if not months.

Godly leaders are patiently willing to work those steps.

But anxious, immature leaders don’t want to work a process, so they envision the outcome they want and then devise shortcuts to get there … and in the process, wreak havoc on their congregation.

As Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, a lawsuit between believers is one such shortcut.

Paul says that those who sue other believers “have been completely defeated already” and “cheat” and “wrong” their brothers.

From time-to-time, I advocate for what I call a Conflict Resolution Group in every church.  Composed of at least three spiritual and wise individuals, this group’s charter is not to manage/resolve conflicts when they arise, but to train, coach, and make sure that believers – especially leaders – follow the biblical directives for conflict resolution.

Because, sad to say, it’s often church leaders who violate the biblical reconciliation process the most.

The governing board needs a group they’re accountable to for the process they use, but not the decisions they make.

Finally, churches in conflict implicitly confess they don’t know the pathway to reconciliation.

Evangelical churches tend to resolve major conflicts in one of three ways:

First, they force out their pastor and blame him for the entire conflict.

Whether the pastor started the conflict, or whether he couldn’t fix it fast enough, it’s amazing how many churches end up scapegoating the pastor for all their troubles.

Because when the pastor is 100% responsible for a church’s problems, those who blame him never have to admit they did anything wrong … and when they hire a new pastor, they get to remain in their current ministries.

Second, they either allow or encourage disgruntled people to leave the church.

Pastors and other leaders often assume that if a contentious faction leaves their church, the congregation will quickly resort to health.

Maybe yes … probably no.

The departing faction may end up at another local church … and use their former church as a mission field, thus perpetuating the conflict.

Finally, they act like nothing happened and sweep the issues under the carpet.

This is the default position in most evangelical churches.

*The pastor has been fired … but the leaders won’t talk about it.

*A staff person has been dismissed … but nobody will answer questions.

*A faction has angrily left … but the leaders act like everything is fine.

And in the process, we Christians never learn from our leaders how to address issues, disagree honestly, respond biblically, and work toward wise and loving solutions.

To use a football analogy, all we do in our churches is punt … punt … punt.

Is it any wonder then that all too many Christian couples divorce … that Christian parents stop talking to their adult children … and that Christian friends stop talking to each other for good?

Church leaders don’t model conflict resolution for us.  They model conflict avoidance instead.

Have you ever been in a church that handled conflict openly?

No, they’re all managed behind closed doors, where demands and threats may be used to end matters.

But in the process, God’s people never learn how godly people are supposed to handle conflict.

As Paul asks in 1 Corinthians 6:5:

Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers?

Sometimes I wonder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

“What else don’t you like about the pastor?”

John, a former board member and longtime attendee at Hope Church, asked this question of the thirteen people who were meeting in his living room one warm Thursday evening.

“His clothes are really blah … not fashionable at all,” commented Mary.

“And I don’t like the way he does his hair,” chimed in Patty.

“And that car he drives,” added Pete.  “It may be paid off, but it’s a real eyesore.”

“Okay,” John summed up, “we’ve now listed eighteen things we don’t like about Pastor Phil.  Let’s take a break and see if we can come up with a few more.  In the meantime, Cheryl, why don’t you read them back to us?”

Cheryl dutifully read each “charge” to the group … and many members nodded their heads approvingly as they heard them recited.

Welcome to the “gunnysacking the pastor” meeting.

I first heard the term “gunnysacking” from a woman in my last church who was a professional conflict manager.  She used it to describe the ugly process that occurs when a group gathers all their complaints against their leader in one bag … and then pours it out on top of him or her all at once.

Gunnysacking occurs in a church when a group of churchgoers meet to make as many allegations as possible against their pastor in hopes that he will hear their charges and resign.

It’s akin to brainstorming everything that you don’t like about a person.

Let me make ten comments about the art of gunnysacking a pastor:

First, gunnysacking is a cowardly activity.

Gunnysackers lack the courage to handle any concerns they have about their pastor in a biblical and loving manner.

If they’re upset about the pastor’s clothes or car, they should speak with him directly rather than with their friends.  After all, what can their friends do about the pastor’s clothes or car?

But instead of speaking with their pastor personally, they only share their petty grievances with people they know feel the same way … and it doesn’t help anyone.

Second, gunnysacking is intended to be a shortcut.

Gunnysackers ignore the protocols that their church has already set up to handle complaints against the pastor.  These protocols are usually spelled out in their church’s constitution and bylaws.

But those processes take time, and often require the cooperation of the official church board.  And by the time gunnysackers find each other, the last thing they want to do is wait.  Their anxiety makes them want to act … now.

In my experience, unless a pastor is guilty of a major offense (heresy, sexual immorality, or criminal behavior), the faster the gunnysackers act, the more damage they will ultimately cause.

Third, gunnysacking wreaks of desperation.

Gunnysackers sometimes air their complaints to church staff or board members.  If they can find a leader who agrees with their complaints, they may very well try and recruit that person as an ally.

But if they try and find allies … and no leader bites … then they figure, “We’re just going to have to do this ourselves.”

The gunnysackers I’ve known shared a narrow view of how church should be done.  And when the pastor didn’t meet their expectations … there was only one solution: he has to go … and we’re willing to provide the push.

For this reason, gunnysacking is an activity of the flesh, not the Spirit.

Fourth, gunnysacking substitutes a quantity of charges for quality charges.

In the average evangelical church, if the official board discovered that the pastor had been engaging in sexual immorality with Bertha Blue at the local motel, they would most likely fire the pastor immediately.

If you have one substantive charge, you don’t need to add more.

The only reason a group piles accusation upon accusation is because they lack anything impeachable.

I once was presented a plethora of negative information about a staff member.  I stayed home and investigated the charges over two full days, and, sad to say, the charges were all true.

I could have confronted him with at least seven to ten indiscretions, but I chose to present him with just the two worst infractions.

When we met, he denied the charges, but I had the evidence in my hands, and he resigned soon afterwards.

If I had added more allegations to the two strong ones I already had, it would have been cruel and come off as revenge … and revenge has no place among Christ’s people.

In my mind, the whole gunnysacking process is a silent confession that the “sackers” lack any substantive charges.  They throw accusations at the wall, hoping some of them stick.

Fifth, gunnysacking is an attempt to make “my complaint your complaint.”

If I don’t like the way the pastor wears his hair (a complaint made against my pastor father many years ago), that’s my personal feeling.

And to even ruminate on that for more than a few seconds smacks of pettiness and a lack of authentic spirituality.

If I’m sitting in church Sunday after Sunday, and I really can’t stand my pastor’s haircut, then I either need to leave the church or ask the Lord to help me accept my pastor.

But if I choose to share my feelings with an entire group, I’ve crossed a line, because now I’m trying to take my private feelings and turn them into official charges … even if they’re not used in the end.

And, my friends, that is just plain evil.

Division in a church begins when people pool their complaints.  Gunnysacking is among the most divisive activities that can ever take place inside a congregation.

Sixth, gunnysacking is ultimately a destructive behavior.

Let me tell you how I was “gunnysacked” as a pastor three decades ago.

I’ve told this story before, but in my second pastorate, the seniors had a Sunday School class which was taught by a former pastor in his late sixties.

He was very disgruntled because he wanted to serve as a pastor or a missionary, but because of his age … and two divorces … nobody would hire him.

So in his class, he railed against some of the practices the elders and I had agreed upon … changes we felt were necessary to reach our community.

The seniors quickly coalesced around the former pastor, and one night, seventeen people met for a single purpose: to create so many charges against me that the elders would ask for my resignation.

The purpose was not constructive … it was destructive.

They not only attacked me, but they attacked my wife, my nine-year-old son, and my six-year-old daughter.

That’s sick.

They claimed that my wife’s slip was showing one Sunday.  (If just one of those people loved her, shouldn’t they have told her personally?)

And one complaint about me was that the drummer’s wife wore her dresses too short.  (Again, why didn’t one of the gunnysackers speak with her personally?  Why was that my job?)

Every single charge was that petty.

Seventh, gunnysacking denies the pastor due process.

In my case, the “Oust Jim” group planned to meet with the elders, read their charges aloud, and then figured that the elders would agree with them and ask me to leave.

There are two huge problems with this scenario.

First, the pastor’s accusers get to bypass him completely and never have to make any charges to his face.  And when churchgoers don’t meet with their pastor directly with their complaints, they almost always tend to exaggerate.

Second, the pastor never gets to hear the charges against him nor answer them.  In fact, he doesn’t know what is being said about him nor who is making charges against him.

And by any measure … biblical, cultural, personal, or organizational … that is just plain wrong.

Years ago, I spoke with a pastor who went to a meeting with several hundred disgruntled churchgoers.  Predictably, they turned into a mob, and both the pastor and the church were severely damaged.

So for that reason, I believe that whenever gunnysacking is occurring, the official board needs to become involved.

Eighth, gunnysacking requires the official board to intervene and redirect the gunnysackers toward a healthy, biblical process. 

In my situation thirty years ago, I heard what the gunnysackers were doing, so I spoke with the board chairman, Richard, about how I felt matters should be handled.

I told Richard that he should do two things:

*Tell the gunnysackers to choose two representatives to make their charges.  The elders should also choose two representatives.  A two-on-two meeting is much more fair than having seventeen Jim Haters meet with four elders.  The numbers alone would make any meeting emotionally lopsided.

*The two elders should answer each charge instantly after it’s made.  The two reps from the pastor hating group should not be allowed to read all of their charges at once.

To his everlasting credit, Richard agreed with my counsel and fully carried it out.

If I had to do it over again, I’d add a third piece of counsel:

*The gunnysackers should be told to go back and organize their complaints:

They should write the name of the original complainer next to each complaint.

The original complainer should then be told, “You are responsible for making this complaint yourself.  The rest of us will not be getting involved.  It’s not really our complaint … it’s yours.  We’re not going to carry your offenses for you.”

The complaints should be divided into two categories: personal and policy.

The personal complaints require that the complainer set up an appointment with the pastor and share their complaint(s) to his face.

If the complainer refuses to do this, then the complaint is, from that time on, a non-issue.

Most gunnysackers won’t do this because they know … deep in their hearts … that their complaints are both petty and mean.

The policy complaints require that the complainer set up an appointment to meet with two representatives from the official church board.  Since the board makes policy – usually in conjunction with the pastor – most complaints about the ministry should start with them.  The pastor should be left out of policy grievances unless he made policy unilaterally … and if so, those policies can be brought to the church board for discussion.

Ninth, gunnysackers want to end their relationship with their target.

The best way to handle complaints against a pastor is to handle them as they arise.

Deal with them one at a time.

If you want to end your relationship with your child, just dump ten things they’ve done wrong on them all at once.

If you want to send your spouse packing, just recite all their faults in one glorious bundle.

If you want to get fired, just tell your boss all the things you don’t like about how he or she manages things.

If you want to keep a relationship with someone, you deal with one issue at a time … as each one arises.

If you want to end a relationship, just keep score and drop the whole load on them at once.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:5 that “loves does not take into account a wrong suffered.”  In other words, love doesn’t keep score.

But hate sure does.

Finally, gunnysackers expose themselves as allies of the enemy.

I can’t find one place in the New Testament where God’s people got together and compiled a list of their leader’s faults.

The disciples never did this with Jesus … and Paul’s followers never did this with him.

This is not how God operates.  The Holy Spirit knows that God’s people are fragile, so rather than convict us of 26 sins at once, He tends to hit us with one or two at a time.

After all, who can change 26 things about themselves at a time?

But this is how Satan operates.  The accuser of the brethren loves to convince believers that they are bad … worthless … and unfit for the Master’s use.

And he hopes that we become so discouraged … and even depressed … that we stop loving and serving God with a devoted heart.

I hear about gunnysacking attempts in churches quite a bit.  Sometimes the complaints even originate with the church board.

I have a suggestion.

Instead of holding meetings to attack the pastor, how about holding meetings to pray for the pastor instead?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

This morning, I received an email from a PhD student at a Christian university.  He wants to interview me as to what happens in a congregation after a pastor is involuntarily terminated.

I’ve been hoping someone would do a study like this for some time.

During my second church staff experience, my pastor was voted out of office, so I have undergone such a scenario firsthand.  I have also heard from scores of churchgoers and leaders who have shared with me what happened in their church after their pastor left.

Most of these consequences are not matters that church leaders anticipated when they forced out their pastor.  There isn’t much in print on this issue, so most leaders are flying blind when they get rid of a pastor.

This is what God’s people have told me:

First, a few people – usually the pastor’s supporters – leave the church immediately.

When I was in my early twenties, my pastor was removed from office by the congregation.  I assumed there would be a mass exodus, but as I recall, only one family left the church, which still surprises me.

In my own case, after a horrendous congregational meeting – one that indicated that I needed to leave my church – a veteran Christian came up to me and expressed great sorrow at the way I was treated.  He told me that he had seen this kind of thing before, knew where it was going, and wanted no part of it.

After that meeting, he and his wife left for good, ending up at a friend’s church instead.

The more unfairly the termination is perceived by the congregation, the more people will leave … and among those will be some who can never be replaced.

Most staff members will stay … at least initially … because the church pays them, but if a key board member or leader leaves, their example might persuade others that they’re on a sinking ship and need to dive off … quickly.

Second, church leaders will feel overwhelmed as the pastor’s duties land on them.

If a senior pastor is forced out, and the church has an associate pastor, most of the ex-pastor’s duties may fall on him by default.

If the church has a larger staff, those duties may be spread out among staffers.

But if the church doesn’t have staff, the pastor’s duties will probably revert to the board, and the chances are high that they won’t know what to do … which is why many boards hire an interim prematurely.

My guess is that most board members don’t know all that their pastor does in a given week or month, and when they force him out … especially if it’s abrupt … they have no idea how much work won’t get done … and the pastor they just pushed out won’t be available to help them.

Without their pastor, many people won’t know where to go for counseling, either … and chances are poor that they’ll seek out the very board members who pushed out their beloved shepherd.

Third, the congregation craves stability.

For many people, a pastor is the father they never had … and the pastor’s wife is the mom they wish they had.

It’s tough enough in a family when either dad or mom leaves home, but can you imagine how hard it would be if they both left at once?

But that’s what happens when a pastor is forced out of office.  The church’s spiritual father and mother vanish overnight.

Some big sisters and brothers usually try and assure their church family that things will be okay, but to many in the congregation – especially new believers and newcomers – the church feels like a plane in free fall.

Sadly, some leaders and churchgoers become so desperate for normality that they will do almost anything to feel better again.

It’s at this point that many leaders make a foolish mistake.

Fourth, the church board hires an interim pastor too quickly.

When my pastor was removed many years ago, the district sent us an older man: J. Wilbur Bullard.  Dr. Bullard was a spiritual man … and a sweet man … but he was also an experienced pastor … and he righted the plane immediately.

Dr. Bullard happened to work out, but all too many church boards … feeling anxious and confused … fail to take the time to hire the right interim for their church.

Instead, they hire the first interim available … sometimes, a friend or colleague of someone in district leadership.

Of course, a district minister wants someone he knows to become interim pastor.  If the DM shows loyalty to the interim, he expects the interim will show loyalty in return and keep funds flowing from the church to district coffers.

But what’s most important is that a church hire the right interim … preferably an intentional interim … and not all interims recommended by districts know what they’re doing.

The average interim comes to a church and buys time while the search team looks for a new pastor.

An intentional interim comes with a structured plan and helps the congregation define who they are and what they want – and need – in a new pastor.

A church board or search team should interview multiple interim candidates and find the one who fits best in their situation.

In fact, it’s better to hire no one than the wrong person.

I trained with Interim Pastor Ministries led by Tom Harris.  I highly recommend Tom’s approach to interim ministry.  Tom gave me the opportunity to serve as an interim at a wonderful church in New Hampshire, and although I chose not to pursue any more opportunities after that, he runs a first-class organization.

If you’re a board member or church leader, and your pastor recently left, and you haven’t yet hired an interim, you owe it to yourself to contact Tom first.  Here’s his contact information:

http://www.interimpastors.com/

Fifth, the church board says as little as it can about why the pastor left.

Not long ago, I spoke with the chairman of a church board that had fired their pastor … and for good reason.

The chairman spoke with an attorney who told him to say nothing about why the pastor left.

But I told the chairman that if the board said nothing, that might keep them out of legal trouble, but they would subsequently have problems with others in the church.

Why?

Because when a pastor is fired … especially if the whole process is abrupt … many churchgoers will be highly anxious, and need an explanation from church leaders to help them make sense of things … and to stay.

Churchgoers also want to trust their leaders, but if the only explanation they receive is, “We can’t say anything, but trust us,” I for one wouldn’t trust them at all.

Why not?

Because that’s not the reasoning of a board that rightly terminated their pastor … that’s the reasoning of a board that’s trying to cover up their part in their pastor’s departure.

I’m a firm believer that a church board needs to say as much as they can about why their pastor left … not as little as they can.

The board doesn’t need to say, “Pastor Smith committed adultery with Betty Lou, the head of women’s ministry.”

But they do need to say, “Pastor Smith was guilty of moral failure” … and if the board has a statement from Pastor Smith admitting that fact, so much the better.

There’s a fine line between harming a pastor’s reputation/future earning power and telling a church the truth … but church boards need to walk that line if they want to restore confidence in congregational leadership.

For the optimal way to remove a pastor from office, you might find this article beneficial:

https://blog.restoringkingdombuilders.org/2016/04/15/removing-a-pastor-wisely/

And for more on sharing information with a congregation, I recommend this article:

https://blog.restoringkingdombuilders.org/2015/01/12/telling-the-truth-after-a-pastoral-termination/

Sixth, many of the church’s best people still may eventually leave.

Nobody attends a church because of the church board, which meets and makes policy in private.

No, most people attend a church because of personal relationships … and because they like their pastor.

In fact, many believers who end up choosing a particular church have visited other churches for months before finally settling down.

When I left my last church, I encouraged everyone I knew to stay.  A few left right away, but most gave it their best shot for as long as they could.

But over time, some contacted me and said, “I really tried to stay, but in the end, I had to go.”

For example, one friend stayed for a year but finally left when she saw someone who helped push me out sitting near her … and knew that his divisive actions and comments were never addressed by church leaders.

Over time … without solicitation … people told me, “I just left the church.”  Sometimes they told me why … sometimes not.

Some friends also told me on occasion, “So and So no longer attends.  They’re now going somewhere else.”

And I’d think to myself, “The church can’t thrive without these people unless many more like them are coming in the front door.  They’re solid believers … regular attenders … generous givers … and faithful volunteers.”

It’s my belief that when a good pastor – who was not guilty of any major offense – is forced out by the church board, most of the “good people” at the church will eventually leave.

And sadly, without those “good people,” the losers end up in church leadership, plunging the church into a downward spiral that’s nearly impossible to stop.

Finally, terminating an innocent pastor can have tragic consequences for a church for years to come.

By innocent, I mean a pastor who was not guilty of any major offense … only manufactured offenses.

When a church terminates such a pastor, they invite these results:

*Some churches that terminated a pastor find it easier to terminate the next pastor(s).  This is what happened in my father’s case.  Even though he was the founding pastor of a church, the board pushed him out … and then pushed out the next two pastors.

Some churches are “repeat offender” congregations, and most healthy pastors won’t even consider serving them.

*Some churches that terminated a pastor hire a new pastor who eventually takes the church down the tubes, but the congregation experienced such trauma after removing the first pastor that they give the next pastor immunity … even if he’s unqualified or incompetent.

This means that the church fired a pastor they should have kept while keeping a pastor they should have fired.

*Some churches – although a relatively small percentage – may thrive in the days ahead, but I don’t hear about these churches.  Nobody calls me up and says, “Hey, Jim, we fired our pastor a year ago, and now our church is doing better than ever!”

I’m sure this happens … just not very often.  (This would make another good study.)

*Some churches dissolve several years after terminating an innocent pastor.

This is what happened in my father’s case.  After pushing my dad to the sidelines, the church board terminated the next two pastors, and the church then dissolved.

Years after the congregation removed their pastor, the church I served as a staff member eventually dissolved as well.

A friend who reads this blog told me that after he was forced out, the board forced out the next pastor, and then the church disappeared.

Nothing kills a church’s morale like firing their divinely called shepherd.

_______________

When a church board believes they’re at an impasse with their pastor, they may very well want to engage in “fight or flight” … that is, either “the pastor goes or we go.”

Some board members tell their colleagues, “In my business, when I have an employee who isn’t working out, I just fire him and hire somebody new.  Let’s do that here.”

But a church isn’t strictly a business … it’s more like a family.

And although a small business owner or a supervisor might be able to control the consequences after firing an employee, no church board can control what happens after they force a pastor to leave.

One of my aims with this ministry is to say to boards who have issues with their pastor, “Think Christianly.  Think biblically.  Think broadly.  Think compassionately.”

I am not saying you can’t or shouldn’t terminate your pastor.  I am saying that unless he’s guilty of a major offense (heresy, sexual immorality, or criminal behavior), don’t let your anxiety cause you to do something that will damage your church for years … or end its very life.

Seek God’s face … get professional counsel … take your time … do it right.

What are some other consequences you’ve seen after a pastor is terminated?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

A pastor I knew for more than twenty years died last week.

For years, AA was my friend.

My first exposure to him was at Biola College when he came and spoke in chapel one Thursday morning in Crowell Hall.

AA pastored a church in Fresno and shared with students that radio ads helped his church to grow … then proceeded to play one such ad on a tape recorder.

Years later, on Veteran’s Day in 1980, my church in Garden Grove called an ordination council for me.  AA … who was now pastoring a church of the same denomination in central Orange County … signed my certificate after the examination, although I don’t recall his presence that day.

Fast forward six years.  One afternoon, I was sitting in the office of our district minister when he told me that AA was coming to Oakland to pastor one of the oldest churches in the district.  I wondered, “Why would anyone leave the beauty of Orange County for the ugliness of downtown Oakland?”

But AA went to that Oakland church, and using his entrepreneurial gifts, he sold some church land and started a new church in a beautiful area just a few miles away.

Right before Christmas in 1986, our district held their annual Christmas party at Mount Hermon Conference Center.  I was asked to do a humorous reading of The Night Before Christmas in the style of an expository preacher and it went well.  Afterwards, AA came up to me and suggested we have lunch together.

A few weeks later, we sat in a restaurant near his church overlooking a lagoon (a place I would later eat at dozens of times) and shared our ministry wounds together.  In the process, we became fast friends.

I invited AA to my church in Silicon Valley one day.  The church wasn’t doing well … we’d had a merger four years before that imploded … and I wanted his opinion on our prospects.

He surveyed our campus and quickly said, “I wouldn’t come here” which hurt a bit.

But he also read an article I wrote on “lost shepherds” and told me that it was good and that he knew the editor of the denominational magazine and would recommend that it be published, which is eventually what happened.

One day, I was speaking by phone to the president of our denomination, and he suggested that I put together a group of pastors in my area for support.  Our first meeting was at a Sizzler in Hayward, and over the next few years, our group of five met nearly every month for lunch.  AA was in that group.

For several years, those pastors and their wives met at AA’s home in early December for a Christmas dinner.  He and his wife were very hospitable.  We enjoyed other social events with those couples over the years as well.

I invited AA to speak to our leaders at my church in Silicon Valley, and he in turn had me speak at a men’s breakfast and a stewardship banquet at his church.

In the summer of 1997, I knew I was going to be leaving my church in Silicon Valley, so AA invited me to speak to his church on a Sunday morning.  The time went well, and AA said he wanted to hire me as his associate pastor, but things didn’t work out at the time, and I ended up at a friend’s church in Arizona instead.

But in the fall of 1998, AA began sending me emails, wanting to know if I’d consider becoming his associate pastor.  He planned on retiring and wanted to choose his successor.  After combing through 85 resumes, AA and the board couldn’t find anyone suitable.

I sent him five reasons why it would be good to work together, and five reasons why it wouldn’t work.

He answered all five objections.

Kim and I flew to Oakland on a Friday.  That night, we went out for dinner with AA and his wife, and we had a great time together.  But one of the board members was so upset about the possibility of my coming (he never even met me) that he instantly resigned.  (He wanted a Union Seminary grad instead!)

My wife and I met with the board the following morning, and things went well enough that I soon returned and spoke on a Sunday.

The board offered me the job of associate pastor, and I eventually accepted.  I did not call myself to that position … God called me … because I initially didn’t want to go.

Because our daughter Sarah was in high school, I agreed to start my ministry on June 1, 1999, so she could finish her junior year in Arizona.

In January 2000, AA announced to the church that he would be retiring the following December.  By this time, I had served at the church seven months, and except for one critic … a board member … I felt I got along great with everyone.

The following April … nearly a year after I came to the church … I asked the board to have the congregation vote on me as senior pastor-elect.  The vote was 76-4 … 95% approval.

AA began to pull back on his ministry a bit, and I began to assert myself more.  One day, as we walked past the open field on the church property, AA told me, “That’s where you will build a new sanctuary someday.”

In the fall of 2000, AA and his wife took a trip to New England, and while they were there, my primary critic resigned his position at the church and openly took shots at me.  When he returned home, AA fully supported me, which made matters disappear quickly.

That same critic began spilling board secrets in public, including the fact that the board had agreed to give AA a generous financial gift upon his retirement.  The church was holding its annual congregational meeting in November, and AA was worried that some oldtimers would publicly object to the gift and that he might not receive it.

I shared with AA and the board how to nullify any objections with the congregation, and the meeting passed without incident.

During the eighteen months that we worked together, AA and I got along very well.  We may have disagreed about certain issues … we’re very different people with very different styles … but I don’t recall one time where we had even a single unpleasant conversation.

And during the fourteen years that we knew each other, I considered AA to be one of my closest friends.  In fact, had I died before him, I wanted him to conduct my memorial service.

After he left the church and moved to Arizona, I did my best to maintain contact:

*Whenever I referred to AA in public, I spoke of him in positive terms and with gratitude.

*Whenever I spoke with his friends within the church … including four staff holdovers … I was conscious that anything I said might get back to him … and it sometimes did.  In fact, AA once told me that a certain individual called him all the time to complain about me.

*Since AA had family in our community, he visited the area a few times a year.  At first, he’d contact me and we’d get together, but after a while, he’d come into town and meet with people from the church without telling me, which made me suspicious.

*He and his wife visited the church a few times after he retired, and things seemed to go well … until the Sunday when I stood up to preach and noticed that AA and his wife were sitting by themselves next to a couple who were angry with me about an issue that had no resolution.

*I interviewed AA about two incidents that happened during his tenure as pastor that led to conflicts and included them in my doctoral project for Fuller Seminary.

*AA became president of a parachurch organization.  Our church supported him financially as a missionary and hosted one of their meetings in the church library.

*I invited AA to speak at the dedication of our new worship center in October 2005.  I also presented him and his wife with a letter of appreciation and a plaque for all they had done for the church.

But during his message, AA made a derogatory comment about me … one that most people wouldn’t have noticed … and I knew something had changed.

Then one man inside the church sent a bizarre email to one of our staff members stating that I needed a mentor and that AA should come back to the church as my associate pastor.  I called the man and tried to set him straight, but it began to dawn on me: AA is telling at least some people that he regrets leaving and wants to come back to the church.

After he retired, AA and his wife lived in Arizona … then Southern California (ironically, in the same city my wife and I live in now) … then in a city in Northern California.

Somewhere along the line, I knew I was being undermined and that anything I did or said that AA’s friends didn’t like would end up being shared with him … and quite possibly, be wrongly interpreted.

I had three options:

*Engage in an investigation into AA’s conduct.  But who would do it?  How would anything change?  What good would come from it?

*Confront AA about his behavior.  But what if he denied everything and then told people I was insecure and paranoid?

*Ignore his behavior and continue building the church … which is what I did.  But what if the undermining gained critical mass?

The church was doing well.  The attendance and giving nearly doubled during my tenure.  We built a new worship center where every vote by the congregation was unanimous.  We were the largest Protestant church in our city by far and had a great reputation in the community.

Fast forward ahead four years.

In the fall of 2009, I heard that AA and his wife were living in a house owned by former church members on weekends … only 500 feet from our church campus.

Only AA never told me.

Intentional or not, he now had a base of operations near the church to hear any complaints against me … just like Absalom listened to complaints about his father David at the gates of Jerusalem.

Only people weren’t bringing any complaints to me, so I didn’t know what they were or who might be upset with me.

I didn’t know it at the time, but AA not only had his fingers in the congregation … he had his fingers in the church staff, and especially in the church board.

In October 2009, a conflict broke out with the church board, and a few weeks later, I chose to resign.

The night I told church leaders that I was going to leave, I was told by the church consultant I had hired that AA had been meeting with the six members of the church board about me.  I don’t know who initiated contact, or how many times they met, or whether the board wanted AA to be their next interim/senior pastor … although a top Christian leader told me that was the plan.

That consultant exposed the plot and wrote a report stating that AA should not be allowed to return to the church in any capacity.

After years of friendship, my good friend had completely flipped on me.

_______________

I never learned what I did or didn’t do … or said or didn’t say … to cause AA to conspire to force me out of my position and eventually end my pastoral career.

Although I can venture some guesses, I’m not very good at mind reading.

I can’t recall our final conversation, but found it telling that he never contacted me after I resigned and left the church, even though I wrote a book about the conflict (Church Coup) and have written more than 500 blogs … most of them about pastor-church conflict.

Several years ago, I went to his Facebook page, and noticed that he was friends with nearly every single person who stood against me in my final days, including former board members and staffers.

In England, they call that a Shadow Government.

I have no idea when or where AA’s memorial service will be held … or if it’s already been held … and I’m certain that I won’t be asked to speak.

So I thought I’d write a blog about the man I knew.

I’ll always be grateful that he wanted me to become his associate pastor and eventually succeed him as pastor.  By every measure, the church did quite well over the next nine years.

And I’ll always be grateful for his friendship … his counsel … his support … and all the good times we had.

Rest in peace, Andy.  I forgive you.

See you in glory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Several years ago, a pastor of a medium-sized church called to tell me that he had been fired.

He told me there was no warning involved, that he was not offered any severance pay, and that he had no idea how to support his family financially.

The pastor said that he wasn’t guilty of any major offense.  He thought the church was going well, but evidently some in leadership didn’t think so.

And I wondered, as I always do, “How could the official board of that church treat their pastor that way?”

Or to put it another way, “What kind of person would fire their pastor without any reason and proceed to cut off his finances as well?”

I couldn’t do that.  Could you?

Based on my experiences in various churches, let me share five traits of a board member who could easily fire their pastor:

First, the board member has a job where he makes unilateral decisions.

Maybe he owns his own company.  Maybe he is an attorney or a doctor with great community influence.  Maybe he’s been given carte blanche in his job to hire or fire personnel.

It’s easy for such a person to take off their “spiritual leader” hat at church and replace it with their “corporate decision maker” hat instead.

I’m not saying that every strong, independent leader in the marketplace is like this, but all too many are, and they are often the ones at the forefront of the pastor’s ouster.

But I can’t even imagine having this kind of mindset.

My wife and I run a small business together.  If I think we should do something different, I run it by her first.  Sometimes she agrees, sometimes she doesn’t.

I won’t proceed without her blessing.  I am not the fount of all wisdom!

But a board member who can easily fire a pastor believes that he is the fount of all wisdom … or that he should be calling the shots at church rather than the pastor, the staff, or the congregation.

If such a person is able to force out the pastor, he or she will become the undisputed leader of the church, even if it’s just behind the scenes.

And that’s what they want.

Second, the board member thinks he knows more than the pastor does about the church’s direction.

If the pastor thinks the church should reach young couples, this board member thinks the church should reach young people instead.

If the pastor thinks the church should be more outreach-oriented, this board member thinks the church should focus more on its own members.

If the pastor thinks the church should take some God-ordained risks, this board member thinks the church should play it safe and only do what’s in the budget.

If this board member senses that he has more influence than the pastor, he may very well plot to remove the pastor from office.

But if he senses he doesn’t have the clout, he’ll either hang around and sabotage the pastor’s leadership, or he’ll leave the church and take as many with him as possible.

But I can’t even imagine sabotaging a church’s direction … especially if it’s the result of months of prayer and planning.

If my pastor wasn’t good at the “vision thing,” I would do my best to help him devise a process where many people could have input on the church’s future.

But I would want his voice to be prominent, because the pastor casts vision from the pulpit, and even the most powerful board member can’t do that.

Third, the board member has secret allies on the board, in the staff, or with a powerful faction.

Most board members who fire their pastor are reasonably sure that they have “enough” support from prominent individuals in their church.

They usually have one or two sidekicks on the board.  These people are relatively quiet but gain power by supporting their vocal colleague.

They also have their fingers in the church staff, receiving a steady flow of information from the office manager, a youth pastor, the worship leader, or an associate pastor.

Every pastor needs allies, especially when conflict surfaces.  I was always strengthened when a board member told me, “Jim, I have your back on this one.”

But I can’t imagine collecting allies so we could push out the pastor together.

It usually takes at least a year of complaining … undermining … resisting … and plotting for a board member to gain sufficient allies to force out their pastor.

Think of all that negative energy!  Couldn’t it be better used for instruction or outreach?

But all that matters to such a board member is power.

Fourth, the board member pays scant attention to biblical teaching on conflict resolution.

More than three decades ago, I was discussing a controversial passage in Paul’s epistles with a board member.

This board member … whom I inherited … told me, “Whenever I come upon a passage like that, I just turn the page.”

Maybe it’s no wonder that he later became the worst antagonist I’ve ever had in any church.

This man had an agenda: to turn our California church into the Swedish church from Wisconsin that he loved so much.

If I went along with his agenda, he would support me.  If I didn’t, he would oppose me.

I didn’t go along with his agenda.  I couldn’t.

Sadly, I could never appeal to him on the basis of Scripture.  The Word of God didn’t govern his life … only his feelings and preferences did.

I remember discussing this man and his wife with a prominent Christian leader who visited our church one Sunday.  This leader – an expert in spiritual warfare – told me to get this couple out of the church and off the rolls as quickly as possible.

They eventually did leave, but took 25% of the church with them in the process.

But I can’t imagine being a spiritual leader in a church and yet ignoring the written Word of God concerning conflict!  I have no idea how the previous pastor let this guy on the board, but when he did, he sowed seeds of destruction that lasted for years.

Finally, the board member desires relief from personal anxiety.

Two years ago, I attended a conference on church conflict with author and prominent church conflict consultant Peter Steinke.

Steinke said that whenever the official board is dissatisfied with their pastor or his performance, they should create a plan and give their pastor twelve to fifteen months to improve.

That sounds fair and reasonable, doesn’t it?  If the pastor senses after a few months that he’s not doing what the board wants, he can start searching for another position.

And if the pastor does improve … crisis averted.

But the board member who finds it easy to fire his pastor doesn’t want to wait twelve to fifteen months to see improvement.

He’s already convinced himself that the pastor will never improve … so the pastor needs to go … now!

What drives him?

His own personal anxiety.

This board member has already made up his mind.  He knows what is best for the church.  He knows the pastor has to go.

So he can’t wait for the pastor to get his act together.  The pastor must leave!

But I can’t imagine having that kind of attitude about a called spiritual leader who loves and preaches the Word of God.

If anybody can change, wouldn’t it be a godly man?

Most pastors are notoriously patient with board members and staffers.  Sometimes I knew that a staff member wasn’t working out but I’d speak with them and monitor their performance for months before I’d take any drastic action.

Shouldn’t a board be patient with their pastor as well?

_______________

What’s the value of thinking about the board member who can easily fire a pastor?

First, no pastor should allow such a person on the board in the first place. 

For some people, being on a board is a frustrating experience because they believe they already know the direction the church should take.

They don’t want to discuss matters in a collegial fashion.  That just allows others to exercise veto power over their ideas.

Over the years, I vetoed the names of many individuals who were entertained as board members.

Even then, I should have exercised that veto more often.

Second, if the pastor detects that such a person is presently on the board, he needs to watch his back … or pray that person off the board.

I have never known a church leader who, once they started attacking their pastor verbally, turned around later on and supported him.

I’m sure it’s happened somewhere.  But once a leader goes public with their feelings about their pastor, they rarely change their mind.

Finally, if you sense that such a person is currently on your church board, alert your pastor and monitor that person while they’re on the church campus.

While a church should not turn into a surveillance state, sometimes God’s people can best protect their pastor by watching and listening to potential antagonists.

These people usually give away how they feel about their pastor by where they sit during worship … who they sit with … who they talk to before and after church … where those conversations are held … and how they respond to the pastor when he’s preaching.

The apostle Paul tells the congregation in Rome, “I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned.  Keep away from them.  For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites.  By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people” (Romans 16:17-18).

We need far fewer naive people in local churches today.

Read Full Post »

If you lie to me once, you’ve sinned.

If you lie to me twice, you’re a liar.

You’ve established a pattern.

It’s difficult to confront liars because they usually cover their past lies with new ones.

I once worked with a church staff member who seemed to enjoy lying.

Several people came to me and said, “So-and-So lied to me.”  They were very upset and wanted me to do something about his fibs.

I tried talking to this leader to see if I could discern any untruths coming from his mouth, but he was really good at covering things up.

So I decided to take my time and see if I could catch the leader in a lie myself.

One day a few weeks later, someone who worked with this person requested a private meeting with me.  They shared information that, if true, could only result in the dismissal of this staff member.

I took two full days to investigate some of the charges the informant made … and the most serious ones turned out to be accurate.

If I brought verbal charges to this staffer, I knew what what happen: he would just deny … or explain away … the charges … just like he did with everything else.

I needed air-tight evidence that he had lied before I could confront him.

Fortunately, I was able to get that evidence in the form of an email from a key person in a Christian organization.

I called the staffer into my office … asked him some questions … asked him if he stood by his answers … and then handed him the email contradicting what he had just told me.

He lied twice to my face … and it was tragic watching him try and explain away his falsehoods.

He left the church soon afterward.

One family in particular drew close to this staff member, and when he left, I suspected they were upset with me.

And sure enough, a few years later, they were in on the attack to force me to leave.

I can only imagine the lies he told about me on his way out the door.

_______________

When a church conflict becomes a contest, some churchgoers start lying.

On occasion, a pastor will float a lie or two about his enemies, but most of the time, people lie about the pastor instead.

In fact, when some people want to force out their pastor, they will lie about him indiscriminately as a way of getting others to join their cause.

And by the time the pastor finds out that people are lying about him, critical mass has been reached, and so many people believe the lies that the pastor has to resign.

This is what happened in my case seven-and-a-half years ago.  There were so many lies going around about me that (a) I didn’t know where they came from, (b) I didn’t know what was being said, and (c) I didn’t know how to counter the lies.

In a very real sense, I was lied right out of the church.

Because Jesus didn’t do anything wrong, the only way His enemies could destroy Him was to lie about Him.

And because many pastors try and lead godly lives, the only way their enemies can destroy them is to lie about them.

*The lies must sound plausible or people will quickly discount them.

*The lies must be plentiful in case the pastor is able to debunk one or two of them successfully.

*The lies originate from those who hate the pastor and want revenge against him … otherwise they would sit down with the pastor in love and speak to him directly.

*The lies leak out from unlikely sources at inopportune times.

*The lies multiply once the pastor leaves the church to prevent any future influence he might have.

Several months after we left our last church, my wife and I went to lunch with a woman who had been very kind to us.

She told me that rumors were swirling around that I had had an affair and that my wife had had an affair as well.

At first, my wife and I both laughed.  She’s the only woman I’ve ever kissed, and I’m the only man she’s ever kissed.

Besides that, my wife worked on the staff with me, and we drove to and from work together in the same car … the only car we had.

And we worked right across the hall from each other.

So we both knew the affair talk was balderdash … but evidently there were some who believed it … and others who were perpetuating it.

This information greatly saddened me, but it was also an indication that Satan – “a liar and the father of lies” – had established a firm foothold in that congregation.

_______________

People lie because it works.  And when they’re caught, they’re often able to lie their way out of trouble.

I accept the fact that there are liars inside local churches today.

But I pray they aren’t on church staffs … or on church boards … or in church pulpits … or any other places of influence … because lies destroy people, families, and congregations.

I once knew an associate pastor who worked for a pastor I knew quite well.

This staff member wanted to get rid of someone in the church he didn’t like … so he lied about him.

When the pastor found out that his associate had lied, he called him into his office … verified all the facts … and then told the associate, “You know what to do.”

The associate instantly resigned.

That’s how we used to handle church leaders who lied.

How should we handle them today?

Read Full Post »

I was given a letter this week from a parent whose child attends a local elementary school.

In just seven lines, the letter states that the school’s rookie principal “has decided to pursue a professional growth opportunity outside our district and will not be returning to [the school] for the remainder of the year.  We wish him well in his new endeavor.”

Without meaning to do so, the above paragraph speaks volumes … and provides insights into how the departure of a pastor might be handled as well.

The first thing that strikes me is that the principal left at least four weeks before the last day of school, which is June 9.  What does this tell us?

It tells us that either he wanted out – badly – or that he was pressured to leave by a person or group inside/outside the school.

My guess is the latter.

Maybe he didn’t receive high marks from the school’s teachers … or district administrators … in his latest job performance review.

Maybe he didn’t do something he was asked to do … or he did something he wasn’t supposed to do.

Maybe he just wasn’t cut out to work with kids, parents, teachers, or bureaucrats.

Or maybe he did something very, very wrong.

Did the school district pay the principal not to work for the last four weeks of the school year?

I don’t know.

But leaving before the school year concludes?

Teachers don’t do that.  Students don’t do that.  And principals don’t do that, either.

Most pastors don’t have long-term contracts, meaning they’re on a perpetual one-day contract instead.

But there are times during the year when a pastor’s tenure is up for review, especially during budget time.

If the pastor’s salary is cut, that sends a message.  If he doesn’t receive even a cost-of-living raise, that sends a message.

In churchland, maybe an apt comparison would be a pastor who resigns right before Easter or Christmas.  Since most pastors enjoy those times of year, the pastor who leaves before a major Christian holiday was probably pushed out the door.

I know what I’m talking about.  I resigned my position as pastor in my last church two weeks before Christmas … but I’d much rather have waited until after Christmas.

Makes for a tough holiday.

The second thing that strikes me is that the principal will be working “outside our district” in the future.  What does this tell us?

It tells us that either he didn’t want to work in the district anymore, or that he wasn’t offered the chance to transfer to another school inside the district.

If he chose to move out of the area for some reason, wouldn’t it have been prudent to mention that as the reason for his departure?  Announcing that a leader is moving away often covers a multitude of sins.

So my sense is that the principal didn’t want to work in the district … or that the district didn’t want him working for them.

Maybe there’s a similarity between a pastor who serves in a church that’s in a particular denomination.

A recurring theme that I hear from pastors who were forced out of their positions is that either their district minister didn’t help them when they were in trouble or that their DM was applauding their ouster.

In my case, I chose to leave the district and the denomination for good.  I discovered years before that denominations are political organizations – far more than spiritual entities – and that when a pastor needs help, the last place he should go is to anyone inside the denomination.

In fact, since leaving my last ministry seven-and-a-half years ago, I don’t think I’ve visited even one church connected with that denomination.

This is a common response that pastors have toward leaders who could have helped, but chose their own self-preservation instead.

Maybe it’s why the majority of terminated pastors jump denominations when they’re looking for another position.

The third thing that strikes me is that the personnel director chose to announce the principal’s departure in a letter.

And the letter wasn’t mailed to parents … it went home with their children.

That’s like sending home a letter about a pastor’s resignation with children who attend Sunday School.

I’m not sure how this kind of thing is normally handled in the public school system.

Should a letter have been sent to parents’ homes?

That would take a lot of time, effort, and finances.

Should an announcement have been made to parents at a school assembly?

That would dampen the mood, wouldn’t it?

Should the school have sent an email to all the parents instead?

Maybe they did.

There isn’t a perfect way to announce the departure of any leader … especially a pastor.

Normally, a pastor’s resignation is announced from the pulpit when the congregation is gathered together.

If the pastor is leaving on good terms, he may read that letter himself.

If the pastor is being pushed out, he’s usually not permitted to interact with the church anymore, so someone else – often the board chairman – announces the pastor’s departure the following Sunday.

When I left a church in the late 1990s, I read my own letter.  I wanted everyone to hear the news (a) at the same time, (b) from me personally, and (c) to hear how emotional it was for me to leave.

The principal may have read his letter to teachers or the PTA, I don’t know.

But as a pastor, I would want everyone in the church to receive a copy of my letter to avoid misinterpretation.

That means I’d either arrange to have a copy of my resignation sent to every home in the church – either through snail mail or email – or I’d have it posted on the church website for a brief period of time.

I’d want people to hear why I left – and the tone of my letter – from me directly, not from those who didn’t like me or might distort what I really said.

To me, the optimal way to handle a resignation is for the pastor to:

*write a positive letter

*read it to the church board

*read it to the congregation

*hang around to answer questions, if the board permits

*distribute that letter as widely as possible

That’s the healthy way, isn’t it?

But there’s one thing left …

The last thing that strikes me is that the school’s letter does not mention who to contact if the parents have any questions or concerns.

The address, phone number, and fax number of the school are at the top of the letter, and the personnel director signed her name.

In addition, the parents are told that “[So-and-So] will be on staff five days a week to serve students and staff” and that “[So-and-So] will be at [the school] three days a week to provide support.”

But if a parent is unhappy with the principal’s quick exit, or wants to know more, who are they supposed to contact?

By not explicitly saying anything, the veiled message is, “This situation is history.  Forget about it and move on.”

Having seen the principal interacting with students – and having interacted with him myself on several occasions – my sense was that the job was a bit too big for him.  Just an impression.

In other words, because the principal wasn’t wildly popular, or didn’t have a lot of meaningful relationships, or didn’t have any notable achievements, most parents likely will accept his departure rather than protest it.

They won’t care why he left … just that he left.

How different a school is from a church!

In a church, the person announcing a pastor’s resignation – usually the board chairman – better be ready for a deluge of questions mixed with anger.

Students rarely attend a particular public school because of the principal.

But most people do attend a specific local church because of the pastor!

And when that pastor leaves – voluntarily or otherwise – many people are going to be upset and want to know more about his exodus.

If the church board says little or nothing, some people will assume that the board pushed out the pastor and is covering their tracks.

If the church board tells the congregation everything, they’ll stir up emotions that can cripple their church for months … or years.

So I believe strongly that whenever a pastor leaves a church, the board needs to say as much as they can rather than as little as they can.

This helps the congregation transfer their trust from their ex-pastor to the present board.

But if the board says little or nothing, they will lose the trust of key leaders and opinion makers, who will either leave the church or turn on the board.

There may be some short-term pain involved by providing more context … and some people may leave the church … but it’s better to be up front than to have the truth leak out later … which it surely will … when it’s much harder to control matters.

The board also needs to tell the congregation, “If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us directly.”  Then the board needs to give the congregation their email addresses … and individual board members need to answer every email they receive as soon as possible.

If I wanted to, I could ask some parents I know to find out the real reason why the principal left.  With a little snooping around, I could probably uncover the truth.

But I’m on the fringe.  I don’t have any kids or grandkids in that school.

People on the fringe of a church usually don’t care much why a pastor left … but the closer a person is to the inner circle, the more they feel they deserve to know the truth.

And with pastoral abuse and bullying – as well as forced terminations – on the rise, many churchgoers will assume the board was at fault if they don’t tell the church enough.

I once read that the best person in the secular world to compare to a local church pastor is a public school principal.

In fact, it’s a rule-of-thumb that the salary of a school principal can be used as a gauge for the amount a pastor should be paid in a community.

Maybe a school bureaucrat can get away with sending home a letter about the principal’s departure.

But a church board can’t try the same tactic without generating a gigantic train wreck.

The more that’s said … and the more honestly it’s said … the better it is for everyone.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: