I’ve been thinking a lot lately about a term … but I don’t know how it made its way into my head.
The term is “institutional truth.” (If you can find a clear definition of the term, please send it to me.)
This term provides a partial explanation as to why some churches end up treating their pastors – and sometimes other employees – so poorly.
To illustrate this idea properly, let me share with you a story that happened more than two decades ago to a pastor I once knew. (I will use aliases throughout this story.)
Pastor John and his wife were called to Trinity Church, a church that had been declining for some time. Through John’s preaching and personal charisma, Trinity began to grow at a rapid rate. In fact, news of Trinity’s growth spread to the church where I was serving, which was several hours away.
One summer, I was attending a Christian conference back east, and when I picked up my rental car, I saw Pastor John and his wife at another rental counter … but all the cars had been rented. I immediately introduced myself to them and offered to drive them to the conference.
During the two-hour drive to conference headquarters, we became fast friends.
While driving, I casually mentioned my interest in pastoral termination and church conflict. John and his wife seemed intrigued by some of the ideas that I shared with them.
We saw each other several other times during the conference, and I sensed I had developed an ongoing friendship with this couple.
Not long afterwards, I heard rumblings that all was not well at John’s church. Some of the pioneers were beginning to complain loudly that they didn’t like John or the way he did things, even though both attendance and giving had significantly improved. These complaints begin making their way to other churches … including the one that I served as pastor.
One day, I visited our district office, and a secretary told me all about the conflict from her perspective. Her view was that Pastor John was causing trouble in that church … which she used to attend. The evidence?
Her friends were upset.
Back at my church, a board member named Harry had a different take on the conflict. He was good friends with Don – a board member from the “troubled” church – and Don fully supported his pastor.
One night, at a board meeting at Trinity, Pastor John arrived to find the district minister sitting across the table from him. The district minister had been meeting with Trinity’s board members who all wanted their pastor removed from office.
Someone pushed a letter of termination in front of the pastor’s face. The letter demanded that Pastor John resign immediately, turn in his keys, clear out his office, and never set foot on the property again.
Pastor John told me later that he stared at the letter for 45 minutes before reluctantly signing it.
However, there is more to the story … because the board waited until Don was away and absent before they staged their coup.
When Don found out what happened – and that the district minister was involved in pushing out his pastor – Don and many of his church friends were extremely upset. They thought the church was going well!
Over the next several months, I was visited by Pastor John, Don, and Stan, a Trinity member who had moved into our neighborhood. Stan wanted to find out if there was a connection between the district office and the church office, so he filed a lawsuit to find out the truth.
Oh, my.
I spoke with all the parties involved, trying to understand the conflict better. (I had no official role except as a pastor interested in resolving the conflict.)
I knew and liked the district minister … and the district’s attorney … and Pastor John … and Don, the board member who didn’t attend that infamous meeting.
I also knew a lot about what happened at that meeting because Don began sending me and his friend Harry official board documents … including the minutes of the meeting where the pastor was terminated. (And I still have them.)
Both sides had made mistakes, but neither side would admit them … and some information going out about the conflict publicly consisted of outright falsehoods.
I witnessed institutional truth up close and personal, and I did not like what I saw. Here is what I learned:
First, institutional leaders almost never admit they’ve made any mistakes. The board at Trinity did wait until Don was absent before removing their pastor … and they did involve the district minister … and they did concoct some deceptive explanations when they made their announcement about the pastor’s departure the following Sunday.
I am not in a position to say that they purposely lied about anything … but I never heard anyone from the district’s side acknowledge that they had committed any errors.
In Scott Peck’s book People of the Lie – a book I’ve read several times – his closing chapter states that government institutions (and he uses the military as an example) never admit that they’ve done anything wrong, even when they’re caught red-handed. In fact, we’re seeing this principle at work right now in our own government with several scandals that have just been revealed.
Why is this? Because it is the job of institutional leaders to advance the mission of their organization and defend it at all costs … and if they publicly admit they’ve done something wrong, they’re afraid they’ll lose people’s confidence and (a) donations will take a hit, and (b) they’ll be reprimanded, disciplined, or even removed from office.
But if God is a forgiving God … and His grace covers all our sins … then why can’t Christian leaders admit that they make mistakes? Doesn’t the gospel apply to leaders as well as non-leaders?
Second, institutional leaders prefer to blame problems on convenient scapegoats. When Don revealed that the church board had aligned themselves with the district office to push out his pastor, Don became the scapegoat instead.
He was blamed for all kinds of things, and because he held a national office with the denomination, attempts were made to remove him from office.
Most pastors and church leaders lined up behind the district office, which resulted in attempts to discredit Don.
And I got caught in the crossfire, too.
Harry, the board member from my church who was friends with Don, went to the district minister and told him to his face that he never should have been involved in removing his successor. I told my district minister the same thing, only in a much kinder way.
I wasn’t trying to remove him from office … after all, every leader makes mistakes … but I couldn’t play political games and act like it was all Pastor John’s fault, either.
Pastor John undoubtedly made some errors in judgment as well, especially when he sent a letter to every church in the district insinuating that the district minister was corrupt. But the district minister was a good man not normally given to playing politics, and I felt that John’s letter went too far.
Third, institutional leaders who do not support their institution 100% are considered subversive. I could not support the district minister’s actions completely. Know why? Because Trinity was the church he had pastored for several decades!
And I believe that it is unethical for a pastor to become involved in removing his successor.
Because I questioned the actions of the district minister, I was branded by some as being disloyal to the district … and some people wrote me off from that moment on.
It’s not that I was disloyal to the district office – it’s that I was more loyal to the truth.
Some top-level leaders felt that since I wasn’t vocally supportive of the district minister, that meant I was standing behind Pastor John instead.
And they especially felt that way when Pastor John quoted from a study I had done about pastors leaving our district.
Since I was becoming persona non grata inside our district, I called the President of our denomination and told him what happened from my perspective.
He told me that I hadn’t done anything wrong … and that he was good friends with Pastor John and felt he was being unfairly blamed for things he didn’t do!
This was the point at which I asked myself:
Must I look the other way and remain silent when I see wrongdoing?
Must I tow the party line and cast blame on people that I think have legitimate complaints?
Must I support an institution completely even when I believe its leaders have done something wrong?
Must I view every conflict through institutional eyes … or am I allowed to view conflicts through biblical eyes?
In my opinion, I was asked – along with many other pastors and church leaders – to believe in institutional truth … which states:
*Those who lead the institution are always right.
*Those who criticize the institution in any way are always wrong.
*Those who fail to protect and advance the institution will be ignored, slandered, or intimidated.
*While it is never permissible for an individual to criticize the institution, it is permissible for the institution to criticize and even destroy its critics.
What do you think of this idea of “institutional truth?”
How have you seen it play out in your church, denomination, or even your company?
Restoring Kingdom Builders 
Showdown at the Denominational Convention
Posted in Church Conflict, Conflict with Church Antagonists, Conflict with the Pastor, Pastoral Termination, Please Comment!, tagged antagonism toward pastors, church politics, denominational support of pastors, denominations and church conflict, denominations and pastoral termination, pastoral termination on June 2, 2016| 4 Comments »
This past weekend, while doing some work around the house, I was plagued by some ministry memories I thought I had long forgotten.
But the more I tried to push them down, the more they flooded my soul, and the only way I know to be rid of them is to write them down and share them.
So here goes …
Nearly 30 years ago, I pastored a church in Santa Clara, California … the heart of Silicon Valley, south of the San Francisco Bay.
Early in 1988, my all-time worst antagonist … a man I’ll call Bob … had returned to the church after a year’s absence. He ended up leading a rebellion against me for two primary reasons: he and his wife didn’t like our change in worship music (which the board unanimously supported) and some of the seniors griped to Bob that I didn’t care about them (if you knew them, you’d understand).
About twenty percent of the congregation ended up following Bob out of our church.
Rather than attend existing churches in the area, those refugees formed their own congregation in a school about a mile from our property … and used our church as their sole mission field.
A pastor who had left his church due to moral failure ended up doing a lot of guest speaking at that new church.
Even though their attendance was meager, Bob contacted the district minister with the stated goal of having his new church admitted both into the district and the denomination.
When I found out about Bob’s intent, I told the district minister, “If you recognize that renegade church, we will pull our church out of the district.”
And I meant it.
It just so happened that the denomination’s annual meetings were being held at the new Santa Clara Convention Center that June … just a few miles from our church … and my wife Kim had volunteered to lead the early childhood program.
I chose to serve with my wife and to help with her program for the upcoming annual meetings.
The festivities opened on a Wednesday night, and the facilities were spectacular. The early childhood program was located on the second floor, and that’s where I stayed that first night.
But someone quickly brought me some bad news.
Bob was in the lobby of the convention center handing out literature to pastors and delegates inviting them to his new church!
This was a complete breach of protocol. It just wasn’t done. The meetings were all about churches as a whole, not any one church in particular. Nobody went to the annual meetings and publicized their church at the expense of others.
Those who brought me this news also told me that Bob was not only publicizing his church, but taking verbal shots at me … the pastor of the only denominational church in Santa Clara … while I was serving God in a room upstairs.
Later that day, I found our district minister and asked him what he was going to do about Bob’s breach of protocol.
His reply?
“What can I do? I don’t have the authority to do anything.”
As far as I was concerned, that was the wrong answer.
I spoke with several of my pastoral colleagues, and they were appalled that Bob was passing out literature about his church … and that the district leadership was allowing it to happen.
Finally, a long-time pastor scooped up all of Bob’s literature (he wasn’t in the lobby at the time) … threw it out … came to me … and slapped his hands together as if to say, “That will take care of that.”
I don’t know how Bob reacted when he discovered that his literature had disappeared. Maybe he blamed me … maybe not.
But that incident is a microcosm of how denominations treat pastors when they’re assaulted by conflict:
First, many denominational leaders secretly hope that certain pastors and churches fail.
Bob was a formidable opponent. He wanted to turn our church back to the 1940s and 1950s.
I couldn’t reason with him, and neither could anyone on our board. He was a bully, and he was going to attack me until I resigned.
Several months before, my district minister had even recommended that I quit because of Bob’s attacks.
But I didn’t leave. I stayed … forcing Bob and his minions to depart instead.
I couldn’t figure out why my district minister wasn’t more supportive … until a pastoral colleague clued me into what was really happening.
My friend told me that district leaders wanted both me and our church to fail so they could take over the property … sell it … and use much of the proceeds to plant new churches.
Most denominational churches insert a clause into their governing documents that states that if the church dissolves, the property reverts to the denomination.
Although our church property sat on less than two acres, land in Silicon Valley at that time sold for one million dollars per acre.
What better way to secure a windfall than to force me out and take over the church?
If you’re skeptical that denominational officials do things like this, let me assure you … they do.
And in my case, I’m positive that’s what was happening.
Second, many denominational leaders claim they lack the ecclesiastical authority to resolve conflicts involving pastors.
This is precisely what my district minister told me: “I don’t have the authority to take any action toward Bob.”
Fine … maybe the DM didn’t have any official authority to deal with him.
Many denominational executives claim that they can’t interfere in the life of a congregation because churches are autonomous … that is, they govern themselves without any outside interference.
But let me tell you … when a district minister wants to interfere in a church situation and get rid of a pastor … he will.
My district minister at that time went back to his previous church, advised the board on how to get rid of their current pastor, and was present when the board demanded the pastor’s resignation.
Not only was it a total breach of ethics, he was also violating that church’s autonomy by interfering … and his influence led to a lawsuit.
In my case, I wanted someone to exercise moral and spiritual authority.
After all, what good is ecclesiastical authority if it doesn’t translate into moral and spiritual decisions?
Thank God, several of my fellow pastors did take action against Bob’s sabotage efforts … and I was grateful for their courage.
But if you’re looking for principled action, look away from the district office … because denominations are far more political than they are spiritual.
Finally, many denominational leaders are more interested in building their denomination than advancing Christ’s kingdom.
This was certainly true in our district.
I went to Talbot Seminary (now School of Theology), a non-denominational school. While there, I gravitated toward books written by British scholars like John Stott, J. I. Packer, Michael Green, F. F. Bruce, and D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones.
Those guys were my heroes.
I tried to think broadly, read widely, and view Christ’s kingdom internationally.
But when I started becoming involved with my church’s denomination, I was appalled at how narrow their thinking was.
For example, I served for several years on the district’s education committee. One day, I asked the chairman if I could invite Pastor Chuck Smith from Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa to speak to the pastors in our district. (I knew a pastor on that committee who was saved at one of Calvary’s concerts.)
At the time, Calvary Chapel may have been the largest church in the United States, and certainly was among the most influential churches anywhere in the world.
One of my best friends worked at Calvary with Pastor Chuck and I thought it would be great to have someone from outside the denomination talk about leadership.
My friend asked Chuck if he would speak for us, and Chuck said yes, so I went back to the chairman of the committee to deliver the news.
The chairman asked a district official if Chuck could come and speak. The official said that Chuck couldn’t come because there were plenty of denominational personnel who could speak to the leaders without going outside our own group.
Pretty lame excuse, if you ask me.
That same district official later criticized me for going to Talbot even though choosing a denomination wasn’t even on my radar when I selected a seminary to attend.
A lot of pastors at this point might say, “Okay, this group may identify its denomination with the kingdom of God, and they’re obviously mistaken, but I’ll suck it up, play the game, schmooze the right people, and maybe move up the ladder someday.”
But I can’t do that.
My wife and I have been watching the TV show Blue Bloods on Netflix. If you haven’t seen it, Tom Selleck plays Frank Reagan, the police commissioner of New York City. (And if you aren’t aware of this, Reagan’s family openly talks about their Catholic faith and often says grace before eating … a rarity on television.)
When faced with a dilemma, Reagan always wants to do the right thing. He always chooses principles over politics. He hates phoniness … meaningless social events… and speaks his mind at all times.
That’s me … and that’s why I resonate with Frank Reagan so well.
But I was never comfortable in my denomination. I was the wrong ethnicity … went to the wrong seminary … thought outside the box … and could not turn a blind ear to wrongdoing.
Many years ago, that district was holding a meeting one Saturday at my best friend’s church. I dutifully put on my suit (this was the early 1990s), got in my car, and drove down the expressway toward the church.
About a mile down the road, I thought to myself, “I hate these meetings. I don’t want to go … so why am I going?”
I turned around … went home … and never went to another one again.
My wife applauded me. She said, “You always come back from those meetings depressed.”
She was right … and I hate being depressed.
Fast forward 15 years.
In our last church, out of 400 adults, only seven people cared about our church’s affiliation with that denomination. Only seven.
One night, at a board meeting, a board member asked me what it would take to leave the denomination.
I told him that I didn’t want that to happen on my watch.
My wife later told me, “You made a mistake. You should have taken the church out.”
She repeated that same sentiment to me this past weekend.
But I didn’t want to do it. I thought I could just ignore them indefinitely.
When major conflict surfaced in my church in 2009, I discovered that my former district minister – who never once contacted me personally over a five-year period – was integrally involved in getting rid of me … even though he liked to claim, “I can’t interfere in local church conflicts.”
My wife was right … I should have led the church out of the denomination years before.
If I had, maybe I’d still be a pastor today.
Share this:
Like this:
Read Full Post »